[H]

So gamification is bad? As [in] actually bad or just something you dislike but is perfectly fine for others to participate in?

Well, I have no idea if it is bad in-itself, or just has been applied in ways that are not conducive, in my opinion, toward anything like even notionally "harmonious Being."  If we can't have productive discourse, if we can't successfully mediate yourselves with ourselves, if we want to exist in a polar and oppositional way, then I do think that is a net negative for humanity.

Personally I think this gamification is a result of academia's obsessive usage of post-modernism, atheism, and materialism as weapons against religious authoritarianism. Problem is these are weapons that, in combination, chew away at any sense of Ground. But humans then attach themselves to moral differences in "battle" with their neighbors, and so we have the tendency toward extremism in discourse that we see to day.

This isn't to rant about Cultural Marxism or some other silliness the Anti-SJWs peddle as a way to get Patreon dollars. I think the original intent was to some degree sound, as Russell notes Materialism was a dogma meant to challenge religious dogma. And of course the danger of moral certainty leads to a temptation toward Evil as "Greater Good". But to even have this conversation requires some appeal to O.M. of some variety as we're noting the negative course of assuming one has sussed out the correct O.M. and using that assumption to do Evil.

No one who doubts O.M. can hope to make a dent in Gamification, as all too few (if anyone) are going to abandon the rush of moral self-righteousness for an Ocean of Meaninglessness. There's a reason the Ctrl-Left and Alt-Right have gained so many followers while university philosophy departments are losing funding or at best are seen as amusing but fundamentally irrelevant institutions. Extremists appeal to Noumenal access where philosophy departments in the West seem to by & large fellate the assumed materialism of the STEM departments or just dither about in a circle jerk of intellectual co-masturbation.

If you want to save the human species, you have to commit to the idea that humanity's well being has objective worth.

Well, I don't know, but I do think that anything that wants to, in a way, "flatten out" the questions and issue of Being, to be simply this, or just that, are not helpful and ultimately likely harmful.  I have my doubts that we need the Objective Moral, but we certainly do need something.  In the end, I think we are mostly quibbling about terms for what is, in practical use, the same functional thing.

[sciborg2]

Well, I don't know, but I do think that anything that wants to, in a way, "flatten out" the questions and issue of Being, to be simply this, or just that, are not helpful and ultimately likely harmful.  I have my doubts that we need the Objective Moral, but we certainly do need something.  In the end, I think we are mostly quibbling about terms for what is, in practical use, the same functional thing.

Well if one simply speaks of morals without mentioning the Ground we can probably get away with not worrying about O.M. But I think that, given the Internet has exacerbated the "gamification" of disagreement to the level of Manichean conflict, one would find it difficult to make people change their behavior when they use the "greater good" excuse to revel in transgression (doxxing, harassment, death threats, etc).

The Evil that we face - the world has never seen the like.

I think it we are so far past the point of no return that only something "spiritual"/numinous, something that at least *seems* to touch the Noumenal Good, is going to get humanity past our current Great Filter situation. Why I think modern philosophy departments have by & large betrayed the human race.

"We stood across from each other like two libertines. I think it was then that I told him truly why I was not on his side. Because the Good was more of an adventure."
 -R.Calasso, Ruins of Kasch

[H]

I think it we are so far past the point of no return that only something "spiritual"/numinous, something that at least *seems* to touch the Noumenal Good, is going to get humanity past our current Great Filter situation. Why I think modern philosophy departments have by & large betrayed the human race.

Well, while I do sort of share your notion of the prognosis, I don't really share your identification of "cause" though.

Because I don't think academia, or intellectuals, or just people thinking is what got us here.  I'm far more apt to place more scrutiny on the side of the systemic factors that incentivize moral simplicity.  And to me, that is the real sort of "key" take away from the video.  We want moral simplicity, be in from gamification, appeals to authority, sheltering the notional Objective Moral, the appeals to reason or rationality, and so on.  We do this for pleasure, we do this because it gives us the clarity we want the world to have.

To blame "intellectuals" for possibly uncovering how this cognitive bias plays out, how the fundamental is not clear, concise and unambiguous, well, just doesn't seem fair or really justified, in my opinion.  The thing is, just intellectual speculation and theory, to me, is not what "got us here."  What got us here is the bare, seeming fact that we don't have access to the Objective Moral, we don't have an outside authority to appeal to, so all we are left with is our subjective manners.  And, those manners, the manner of wanting things to be clear for the pleasure of clarity, is what gets us here.

That is not to say that any and all intellectual, or pseudo-intellectualism is "good."  Nope, scientism is no better than any other ideology.  Blindly worshiping rationality, or to me, even worshiping the notion of Objectivity, is no better either.  But, as always, what do I know?  Certainly nothing, very likely less than nothing.

[sciborg2]

Because I don't think academia, or intellectuals, or just people thinking is what got us here.  I'm far more apt to place more scrutiny on the side of the systemic factors that incentivize moral simplicity.  And to me, that is the real sort of "key" take away from the video.  We want moral simplicity, be in from gamification, appeals to authority, sheltering the notional Objective Moral, the appeals to reason or rationality, and so on.  We do this for pleasure, we do this because it gives us the clarity we want the world to have.

Where is "here", and why is it bad? Seems like you're using some kind universal measure? ;-)

And I didn't mean every intellectual, just those who were committed to the goal of using atheism, materialism, and post-modernism as weapons against religious dogma. Sadly in doing so they threw baby Jesus out with the bath water - trying to cobble together some kind of ethical schema in absence of the Good as a Transcendent Real.

I don't disagree that any time someone is absolutely convinced they can use the excuse of O.M. to transgress accepted norms - norms they probably accept for discourse in their "tribe" - it leads to bad ends. But I don't think this is simply an appeal to O.M., rather it's carving out different rules for discourse in different tribes. If anything this is a betrayal of morals as Universals, as pleasure is derived from transgression and conflict rather than acting in accordance with the Good. It's a step backward in our thinking as a species, and I don't think we'll see a course correction without offering the pleasure of acting in accordance with Virtue as a replacement for the pleasure one feels when they hurt others in the name of their tribe.

[H]

Where is "here", and why is it bad? Seems like you're using some kind universal measure? ;-)

Am I?  I was just evoking the transcendental a priori notion of space and time.  But I know, or "know,"
 in the sense of General Relativity, that this isn't spacetime in-itself.  Right?

And I didn't mean every intellectual, just those who were committed to the goal of using atheism, materialism, and post-modernism as weapons against religious dogma. Sadly in doing so they threw baby Jesus out with the bath water - trying to cobble together some kind of ethical schema in absence of the Good as a Transcendent Real.

I don't disagree that any time someone is absolutely convinced they can use the excuse of O.M. to transgress accepted norms - norms they probably accept for discourse in their "tribe" - it leads to bad ends. But I don't think this is simply an appeal to O.M., rather it's carving out different rules for discourse in different tribes. If anything this is a betrayal of morals as Universals, as pleasure is derived from transgression and conflict rather than acting in accordance with the Good. It's a step backward in our thinking as a species, and I don't think we'll see a course correction without offering the pleasure of acting in accordance with Virtue as a replacement for the pleasure one feels when they hurt others in the name of their tribe.

Well, to me, this is key.  I am skeptical of the, lets call it, Religious Symbolic/Imaginary Order, but you better believe I am also skeptical of the Atheist Symbolic/Imaginary Order as well.  So, I think, again, that we are really quite akin on your critiques, we just approach and apply them somewhat differently.

The thing is, I still don't think we actually get anything like an Objective Morality, ever.  I still think of it in terms of a collective Subjective Morality, that we base, in part, on appeals to a notion of an Objective Morality.  I simply cannot say, one way or the other, if there really is, or is not, an Objective Morality "out-there" (that is, a Noumena) and I'm inclined to just push on the issue then.  To me, I want to really question and interrogate (as I am always wont to do) the very nature of that appeal.  Again, not to really question what Objective Morality would be, in-itself (again, because I do not really see how we have access to it), but to question all the Subjective factors in, what to me, seems like an ultimately Subjective formulation then of morality.

So, I guess to summarize in a way, my point is that it is always mediated.  What I want to question is the nature and facts of the mediation, not the nature and fact of the in-itself, because, in a way, I don't see how we ever get the in-itself in-itself.

Let me slam the breaks on my usual train of thought careening toward jargon-ville here though.

[sciborg2]

So, I guess to summarize in a way, my point is that it is always mediated.  What I want to question is the nature and facts of the mediation, not the nature and fact of the in-itself, because, in a way, I don't see how we ever get the in-itself in-itself.

Let me slam the breaks on my usual train of thought careening toward jargon-ville here though.

Is there a purpose to this? You seem to have some telos in mind here, where you think we as humanity will end up via this process? I guess it would be different than the "here" that currently describes our mortal condition, a condition you seem to think is "bad" in some sense beyond "this state is unappealing to me in the same way I don't like chocolate ice cream."

To me the asterisk you're putting on your own statements dilutes them. "Child pornography is Evil" vs "Well, you know, this pornography made by exploiting kids isn't to my taste but maybe it is actually Good cause of the Phenomenal Veil that separates us from the Noumenal"...

Sometimes you have to consciously take a leap of faith, as you are by virtue of your existence continually taking the "icons" in your supposed "User Illusion" as pointing to something True. And all the icons are Grounded in quales. Why I return to the mystical roots of Philosophy, noting the Neoplatonists did not see themselves as "Neo" but rather a continuation of Plato's initiation school attempting to grasp the Mystery of the Good...

"What is ethical cannot be taught. If I could explain the essence of the ethical only by means of a theory, then what is ethical would be of no value whatsoever."
 -Wittgenstein

[H]

Well, let me try, in light of our conversation yesterday, to try to refocus and maybe introduce something more of a formalism.

From my understanding of your position:

1) Objective Morality (OM) exists outside any subjectivity and is an Absolute coding of what is, or is not moral.

2) OM is accessible via moral intuitions, or, moral quales.

3) OM is measurable by means of consensus (?) (which might mean a simply majority of agreement of moral intuitions between subjects).

4) Appealing to OM justifies certainty and certainty justifies OM because it can likely lead to a consensus.

5) Certainty "wins" over any notion of uncertainty, therefor, there can be no case against it except certainty.  So, certainty is the Absolute.

I just realized that this is a futile exercise.  In the end, you are certain and with the circular logic of 4 wedded with the notion of winning of 5 means there is no point in belaboring it.

So, you have it, you win.  I had no intent on "winning," or desire to do so, therefor, I'll just cut to the chase and give you what you were after without belaboring it.

[sciborg2]

Well, let me try, in light of our conversation yesterday, to try to refocus and maybe introduce something more of a formalism.

From my understanding of your position:

1) Objective Morality (OM) exists outside any subjectivity and is an Absolute coding of what is, or is not moral.

2) OM is accessible via moral intuitions, or, moral quales.

3) OM is measurable by means of consensus (?) (which might mean a simply majority of agreement of moral intuitions between subjects).

4) Appealing to OM justifies certainty and certainty justifies OM because it can likely lead to a consensus.

5) Certainty "wins" over any notion of uncertainty, therefor, there can be no case against it except certainty.  So, certainty is the Absolute.

I just realized that this is a futile exercise.  In the end, you are certain and with the circular logic of 4 wedded with the notion of winning of 5 means there is no point in belaboring it.

So, you have it, you win.  I had no intent on "winning," or desire to do so, therefor, I'll just cut to the chase and give you what you were after without belaboring it.

But that isn't my position at all - I don't think there is any "winning" here, though with all the skepticism you have about your own subjective apprehension it does seem odd to see your certainty about what I supposedly want?

I've noted multiple times the issues with moral certainty so not sure where you got this reading...

[H]

But that isn't my position at all - I don't think there is any "winning" here, though with all the skepticism you have about your own subjective apprehension it does seem odd to see your certainty about what I supposedly want?

I've noted multiple times the issues with moral certainty so not sure where you got this reading...

Well, if I misunderstood our conversation yesterday, then I misunderstood.

I can't go back and quote, since that is all lost.  I am not certain about what you want.  I wasn't making an attempt to issue out any proclamation of certainty either.  All I could do was try to formally write out what seemed to be your case.  If I failed, then I failed, I made no claim to ever be, nor did I mean to insinuate, that I have the clear knowledge of something like Objective Truth.

You did not make the case that the Objective Moral does not bring with it certainty?  Again, access to the Objective Moral does not then mean that Moral Certainty is, well, certain?  Well, then I misunderstood just what we were talking about.  Seems that I have no grasp then on your case honestly, so maybe I well and don't have a case at all.

[sciborg2]

But that isn't my position at all - I don't think there is any "winning" here, though with all the skepticism you have about your own subjective apprehension it does seem odd to see your certainty about what I supposedly want?

I've noted multiple times the issues with moral certainty so not sure where you got this reading...

Well, if I misunderstood our conversation yesterday, then I misunderstood.

I can't go back and quote, since that is all lost.  I am not certain about what you want.  I wasn't making an attempt to issue out any proclamation of certainty either.  All I could do was try to formally write out what seemed to be your case.  If I failed, then I failed, I made no claim to ever be, nor did I mean to insinuate, that I have the clear knowledge of something like Objective Truth.

You did not make the case that the Objective Moral does not bring with it certainty?  Again, access to the Objective Moral does not then mean that Moral Certainty is, well, certain?  Well, then I misunderstood just what we were talking about.  Seems that I have no grasp then on your case honestly, so maybe I well and don't have a case at all.

Well I don't think I was making a complete case necessarily regarding the metaphysics of morality, though I do think if morality isn't referring to some kind of Objective measure it becomes pretty much impossible to make a dent in the "gamification" problem.

Of course it is complicated - doubts about statements like "Black people aren't full people" and "Women shouldn't get the vote" is what led to moral change. OTOH, the road to Evil runs along the same path - making people doubt universal principles of decency.

But if statements like "Child pornography is Evil" or "Anti-Semitism is Evil" cannot be held as an Absolute then I can't see any real road toward moral progress as it would be hard to even find the measure of progress being used if such is the case? And if we cannot even regard the underpinnings of Logic/Math as [Objective] Universals I'd say there is no Ground to rationally discuss anything at all?

Regarding Gamification, I would hesitate to think that people who "fall" for this sort of thing are completely duped. People derive pleasure from being self-righteous and transgressive, so I don't think an intellectual argument will suffice to pull them away from pernicious behavior. [Which isn't to say you or anyone else is thinking people are simply duped, just throwing out my own thinking that I believe aligns with the video.]