Philosophical Vegan Forum

The premise at the heart of this argument is that there exists a standard of ethics rooted in objectivity. That there are right and wrong actions, and that these judgments apply to everyone (all things being equal, like circumstances, etc.). This is unproven.

You can define this any way you'd like (not killing something that wants to live, etc.) but the bottom line is that it's not rooted in objectivity; you simply buy in, or you don't (just like religion). All the subsequent logic doesn't matter if your fundamental position is simply "here's an idea we think is good."

I contend that even rape is not wrong in any objective sense; it is merely not preferred. Objective means that a thing simply IS, whether anyone cares to acknowledge it or not. What would "objectively wrong" even look like? It's not wrong already, and then someone comes along and discovers it. Ethics is not discovered, it's created via conscience and/or logic based upon opinions. If it were discovered, it would be as indisputable as science (assuming objective reality).

We agree that with ethics you can simply opt out -- but even so, you're acting as though there is only one valid system of ethics. I'm saying that the notion of ethics is nothing more than a preferred ideology, and so there are innumerable choices. You can't say "the only way out of veganism is to be an unethical person."

There is no objective standard prohibiting me from saying "my ethics holds that all life wants to live, so we should not eat anything alive. We should just die. Since humans have had a disaterous effect on other species anyway, this would clearly be the most ethical choice. Vegans are unethical people."

See, the reason why I am pressing this issue is because the dog and pony show is weakening your argument. People can smell bullshit even when they don't have the abstract thought proclivity to explain it. People instinctively know that "you're bad because you do XYZ" doesn't ring true. That's why they reject religion most of the time. They'll buy in when you talk about conventional norms, like not killing people, but the invalidity of objective ethics starts to become more obvious around the edges. They're also not buying the health trip when they see health and longevity varying along the same spectrum, regardless of diet.

Your strongest sales pitch is not science, objectivity and logic, it's an emotional appeal. If you can't show us the objectively true premise that makes this anything more than a preference of thought and action, just steer clear of the whole hornet's nest. I have yet to see this premise demonstrated.

I suspect that's because it's not possible, for all the reasons that have been deemed "unproductive" and a "waste of time." I could understand the inconvenience of these ideas if you're trying to peddle opinion as fact, but it's simply a suspension of disbelief to ignore relevant points just so your carnival ride doesn't get shut down.

"Name that trait" is putting the cart before the horse. How about "name that objectively true premise"?

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am There is no objective standard prohibiting me from saying "my ethics holds that all life wants to live, so we should not eat anything alive. We should just die. Since humans have had a disaterous effect on other species anyway, this would clearly be the most ethical choice. Vegans are unethical people."

Not likely to be the most ethical, what about your own lost potential to yourself and family and friends. Also its not really a practical step that others are likely to follow, your best bet is going vegan and being a good example to others.

We can't know that an asteroid won't strike the earth tomorrow and the profit from buying already slaughtered animals won't have time to go into raising and killing more, but we have this thing called 'theory of mind,' we know animals don't want to be killed, we know contributing to that system is holding our societies back from a more desirable status quo. Why would you want to act in bad faith to what you know that animal wants or what is best for the other humans around you?

Have you come across atemporality or metamodernism? Even though your life has no inherent meaning or 'essence', you can still act like it does because everyone is performing in a limited field of communicable role scripts, if you go vegan you encourage others to go vegan too and you have a shot at living in a more desirable world. That's all it is for me. Existentialist who accepts you can objectively game theory human behaviour to an extent and lessen suffering.

Why not attack impracticality in all its forms?

I really think a lot less energy needed to be expended than if you just did some basic reading in schools of ethics, consequentialism is just directing our basic ability to use logic into coming to a consensus on minimal universal precepts we can all adopt towards bringing about a better quality of life. Veganism isn't the moral baseline, it's just often the easiest step consumers can take, "animal agriculture is the biggest contributor to global warming that we can practically do something about." We can still work towards things like zero-waste, and worker rights regulations and transparency. I have my own concerns about how consequentialist often use their minimal precepts argument to attack virtues as wasteful expenditures of energy, but can you please get off the unfalsifiable and come up with an argument about how your ethics are better for society than vegan ethics? If they're not even comparable then this is truly a useless conversation.

Brian, please try to answer my questions and respond to my answers of yours, it's hard to move things along with so many jumps.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am The premise at the heart of this argument is that there exists a standard of ethics rooted in objectivity. That there are right and wrong actions, and that these judgments apply to everyone (all things being equal, like circumstances, etc.). This is unproven.

This is what I'm demonstrating; it is not a premise, but a conclusion.

Because a concept is not a physical thing, the only thing that demonstrates that concept is false is a contradiction which makes the concept incoherent.
"God" is different because it involves claims of physical reality and intervention; it's not just a conceptual system.

With Morality, in order to determine an objective morality, we have to establish a "king of the hill", disproving other contenders by contradiction.

I showed you with the deontology/consequentialism split how that can be done.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am You can define this any way you'd like (not killing something that wants to live, etc.) but the bottom line is that it's not rooted in objectivity; you simply buy in, or you don't (just like religion).

I'm not just defining this "how I want", this is derived.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am All the subsequent logic doesn't matter if your fundamental position is simply "here's an idea we think is good."

Of course, and that's not remotely what I'm doing.
Please read my last post again, and try to answer the questions and repsonses to your questions.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am It's not wrong already, and then someone comes along and discovers it.

No, it was always harmful, they just didn't know it was wrong.
This is not Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff.
Culpability does involve some measure of knowledge, but that's different from the fact of it being bad.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am Ethics is not discovered, it's created via conscience and/or logic based upon opinions. If it were discovered, it would be as indisputable as science (assuming objective reality).

And what I'm arguing is as indisputable as science.
People still attempt to dispute science; there are those who think the Earth is flat, or just a few thousand years old. They're wrong.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am We agree that with ethics you can simply opt out -- but even so, you're acting as though there is only one valid system of ethics.

Yes, that's my point.
Something like half of my last post was explaining that, and WHY.

When we eliminate all other "possible" systems of ethics, we're left with "one".

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am I'm saying that the notion of ethics is nothing more than a preferred ideology, and so there are innumerable choices.

That might be true if there were multiple contradicting conclusions from equally valid and objective ethical systems.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am There is no objective standard prohibiting me from saying "my ethics holds that all life wants to live, so we should not eat anything alive.

Of course there is.
The claim that "all life wants to live" is an empirical one, and false. Non-sentient life does not and can not want anything.
This is science, and it's:

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 amindisputable as science (assuming objective reality).

See how that works?
Ethical claims premised on empirical claims that are scientifically false are just wrong. This is how science informs ethics.

Coming from another direction (and to simplify things), if you claim "God said raping women is OK, so it's OK", and I demonstrate via science that your version of "God" doesn't exist, your ethical framework falls apart.
Do you see how this works?

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 amWe should just die. Since humans have had a disaterous effect on other species anyway, this would clearly be the most ethical choice. Vegans are unethical people."

This is a belief among some people, however, it ignores the opportunity cost/alternative.

If humans die off, the world will lose the opportunity for technological and moral progress that will make things better. All this does is hit the reset button, and return the world to the savage nature of... nature. Then another species will evolve and do the same shit, advancing slowly through war and imposing great suffering on the world until they're at the doorstep of morality -- only to kill themselves again and let the cycle repeat?

Currently, we have the potential to become better. We should not squander that through suicide.

Some vegans are unethical, but did you miss my explanation of what makes a person moral in the last post?
I really need you to respond to my answers to your questions, and the questions I ask so I at least know you're following what I'm explaining.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 amSee, the reason why I am pressing this issue is because the dog and pony show is weakening your argument.

You have not addressed my argument, but you're giving the straw man you've built quite a thrashing.
I need you to try to read and understand my argument before you attempt to debunk it.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 amPeople can smell bullshit even when they don't have the abstract thought proclivity to explain it. People instinctively know that "you're bad because you do XYZ" doesn't ring true.

I think "You're bad because your a murderous rapist pedophile" rings true to most people. A response of "well that's just your personal opinion, in my opinion I'm good" smells like bullshit to most people. Most people would prefer to add "meat eating" to that list rather than scratch the list entirely and say everybody is good/bad and it's all opinion.
But that aside, you're mischaracterizing my position massively.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 amThat's why they reject religion most of the time.

No they don't.
I don't think you've talked to that many ordinary people.
Regardless, this isn't a popularity context. A logical argument stands independently of how many people like it or erroneously think it's bullshit because they don't understand it.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 amThey're also not buying the health trip when they see health and longevity varying along the same spectrum, regardless of diet.

I don't think you're familiar with the research, or understand the difference between mechanistic and population studies, but this argument isn't about health.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 amIf you can't show us the objectively true premise that makes this anything more than a preference of thought and action, just steer clear of the whole hornet's nest. I have yet to see this premise demonstrated.

I don't think you understand how logic works.
Can you please identify the actual premises in my argument that you disagree with? I have asked you this multiple times, and you have not done so.
You only misidentified my conclusion as a premise.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 am "Name that trait" is putting the cart before the horse. How about "name that objectively true premise"?

As I explained, I do not use #NamtThatTrait
I demonstrate how morality is objective and what it means.
I need you to answer my questions and respond to my answers to your questions, though, so you can understand my argument. You clearly do not understand what I'm arguing.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 3:36 pm

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:47 amSee, the reason why I am pressing this issue is because the dog and pony show is weakening your argument.

You have not addressed my argument, but you're giving the straw man you've built quite a thrashing.

The imagery evoked in that repartee was exquisite

@NonZeroSum

Your argument is just fine with me. There's no claim here that puts up red flags. As a side note, none of what I've said is meant to reflect my personal ethics -- I think veganism is a wonderful approach to life. I'm not arguing for carnism; I'm arguing for truth. My interest is philosophical, with a practical purpose in mind...

I believe that the world is sufferring from a desensitization to bullshit. In the U.S., we have been said to be living in the age of "alternative facts". We have a president who blatantly lies every two seconds, and millions of people believe him. I attribute this to the fact that media is so inauthentic, mostly due to advertisers and news programming portraying a skewed worldview. Reality TV, commercials, political talking heads, and internet convos are laden with inaccuracies and a blatant disregard for truth.

This is why I spent so much time trying to pull back our thinking to a more appropriate, humble place. Recognition of our utter subjectivity puts us in a better position to avoid the pitfalls that surround us. We cannot adopt the dubious claims put forth by "experts" if we recognize that our own experience is our primary means by which we obtain true knowledge. We are thus less succeptible to the shitstorm being blasted at us from every direction.

Unfortunately, this sometimes means taking the "good guys" to task as well. But the effort is not intended to tear apart the vegan position, but to point out its weaknesses and strengthen it via intellectual resistance training. I am fighting my own ethical battle for authenticity. My sincere hope is to see the beneficial positions get stronger, and the destructive ones be revealed as such.

@Brimstone

I can't do what you're asking because to address everything you've said in response to what I've said, in response to what you've said would be unmanagable. I have too many things to say about each sentence you write.

I'm trying to boil it down by asking you for the fundamental assertions which stand as your first premises, but I come away never feeling like I've gotten the answer. We both feel misunderstood. If we can just get to the root of the tree, we can skip trimming all these leaves.

For example (just example; I'm not reopening the dialogue) I have made a case against the assertion of objective reality (not objective reality itself) thusly:

-Perceptive experience is the only means by which we may acquire knowledge.
-All perceptive experience is subjective.
-Objective reality cannot be known to exist as such via subjective means.
-Objective reality cannot be known via perceptive experience.
-We can have no knowledge of the existence of objective reality, therefore any assertions to that effect are unfounded.

This is a little loose, structurally, but you get the idea.

What is the premise(s) that leads to the conclusion that your ethical code is objective? What is the logical case in its briefest form?

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:24 pm @Brimstone

I can't do what you're asking because to address everything you've said in response to what I've said, in response to what you've said would be unmanagable.

Unimaginable? Come one now, your imagination can't be that limited. I only asked a couple questions, most of them "do you understand this point?". A one word answer to those questions would suffice.

You don't have to respond at length, I just need to know what you understand and what you don't.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:24 pm I have too many things to say about each sentence you write.

Then pick some of it and start from there.

Imagine we could make a list of all "possible" ethical systems. Even if it were infinitely long.
Then, imagine if we could cross off all of the arbitrary ones.
Then, imagine if we could cross off all of the self-contradictory ones.

If such a list were made, and all of the wrong answers eliminated, and if the result was that there was only one answer remaining on the list after all of that, would you accept that last remaining ethical system as objective morality?

Just answer that one question. Yes or no.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:24 pm I'm trying to boil it down by asking you for the fundamental assertions which stand as your first premises, but I come away never feeling like I've gotten the answer. We both feel misunderstood. If we can just get to the root of the tree, we can skip trimming all these leaves.
[...]
What is the premise(s) that leads to the conclusion that your ethical code is objective? What is the logical case in its briefest form?

I quoted my response to AMP, explaining how arbitrary systems are not valid. I asked if you understood that point.

Once that argument is accepted, there are a couple ways to arrive at objective morality. Constructively, and destructively.
The destructive argument (eliminating all other "options") is above.
I made the constructive argument on the first page, which in short is that an objective value system must be constructed from the sum of all values.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 1:13 am When you build a brick house, do you build it out of bricks, or out of abstract values?

Morality is a value system, the key word being value. You can't construct a value system using physical bricks any more than you can build a brick house from values.

Not only must it be logically consistent and non-arbitrary, but it also must be framed in terms of values. That should be obvious, but most people don't get it.

A "moral system" which measures value in terms of bricks and demands we manufacture as many bricks as possible as the root of all good, maximizing the number of bricks in the universe, is incoherent. It's also arbitrary, so it fails on two levels (Why bricks and not pickles?).

Moral systems for use in guiding your behavior as a moral person are built by considering the values of others. An objective one is built not from consideration of one other person's values, not from one species' values, but the sum of all other values that exist. That means looking at what each other sentient being values -- pleasure, avoidance of pain, life, love, art, whatever (depending on the species values may be more or less abstract) -- and regarding those values with some measure of moral consideration.

If an animal (human or otherwise) does not want to die, an objective moral system considers that value and says it's wrong to kill that animal, all other things being equal.

Not too complicated. More or less it's the golden rule, minus any arbitrary choices to disregard the interests of members of species that are not your own.
That doesn't mean killing is always wrong. Sometimes it's necessary to kill one to save many. But perpetuating an unending cycle of suffering and death (one that is harming the environment and human health too) for short term taste pleasure just isn't morally acceptable by an objective consideration of the facts at hand.
We need to start eating other things. We are not lacking in delicious food that is less destructive to non-human animals and our own society. It may be difficult for a few weeks (like quitting smoking), but in the long run it's a win-win to go vegan. It's the only rational conclusion an informed moral agent can come to.

None of the premises involve claims like "it's wrong to kill".

@Brimstone

Ok, this is manageable and clear, thank you. I have read what you've been saying, even if I don't always address each point directly. I don't want to delve too deeply into a system without first establishing its credibility. If we were discussing why "The Deer Hunter" is your pick for the best movie of all time, there would be implied consent that we accept the subjective nature of the discussion. With objective ethics being suggested, it seems prudent to iron out whether it actually is objective before getting into the finer points.

What you described is a thoughtful, rational approach to ethics that is both encouraging and exciting to contemplate. I wish I could say that I would accept it as objective, but I cannot, so my answer to your question would have to be "no."

It's so damn close, I regret having to say that; but as I mentioned in another post concerning certainty, I cannot get past the black and white nature of this objective/subjective dilemma. On one side of the fence is objectivity, and on the other is subjectivity. It doesn't matter how close something is to the fence. Even if you can reach across and touch it, it still resides on one side or the other.

Now, I shouldn't say "it doesn't matter", because degrees are still a topic worthy of consideration, but not when it comes to applying the concrete label of objective or subjective.

The very nature of values is that they are subjective, and thus any arrangement of those values must also be considered subjective (this will no doubt sound familiar). I do not accept that an arrangement can exist independent of the thing being arranged, and so it cannot have any quality independent of its object. I think of arrangements in terms of adjectives rather than nouns.

There is no such thing as a square independent of lines, though lines may be arranged "squarely". There is no such thing as ethics independent of values, though values may be arranged ethically. You have done a perfect job of describing ethically-arranged values, but this does not permit a subjectively-dependent arrangement to jump the fence into objectivity.

For ethics to be objective, there would need to be some objective component. Being wholly derived from subjective values, this is simply not present. I am necessarily compelled by inescapable logic to hold my current position (being a person who values the arrangement of thought known as logic).

I am a spiritual person, with an ethical code derived from these beliefs. I wish I could claim that my thoughts on this matter were objectively true, but I cannot, and thus I will never assert my beliefs, though I may vehemently seek to persuade. I find you to be in the same boat - passionate, well-intentioned, seeking to uplift humanity with thoughtful contemplations, but ultimately armed with a knife at a gunfight when it comes to asserting your point of view to others.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 8:26 pm It's so damn close, I regret having to say that; but as I mentioned in another post concerning certainty, I cannot get past the black and white nature of this objective/subjective dilemma.

Where do you think the subjectivity creeps in? Through the imperfection of science?

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 8:26 pm Now, I shouldn't say "it doesn't matter", because degrees are still a topic worthy of consideration, but not when it comes to applying the concrete label of objective or subjective.

Would you agree that it's the "most objective" or "least subjective", and to that extent, if a rational person is to choose from among various ethics, this would be the most rational to select if all other biases are removed?

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 8:26 pmThe very nature of values is that they are subjective,

A value itself is subjective, but the fact that Bob has X value is objective.
What we're dealing with is not personal values here, but respect for the objective facts of others holding subjective values.

Please see my reply to AMP here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3168&start=80#p31374

Here's a brief quote:

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 3:16 am

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 10:17 pm Do I believe reality is subjective? This begs the question - what is Reality? Well, we can't determine that reality is Objective based only on the consensus that the sky is blue, because this excludes all other things -- emotions, education, religion, food, movies, attraction to one another, hobbies, fear, etc. -- these are all part of "reality" and everyone falls into subjectivity in each category.

Chocolate is delicious: this is a subjective claim/opinion.
Bob thinks chocolate is delicious: this is an objective claim/fact.

The trouble is some people don't understand reality, and they think that subjective claims have truth value to reality. In fact, every subjective claim, once associated with its subject, becomes objective.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 8:26 pm and thus any arrangement of those values must also be considered subjective (this will no doubt sound familiar). I do not accept that an arrangement can exist independent of the thing being arranged, and so it cannot have any quality independent of its object. I think of arrangements in terms of adjectives rather than nouns.

The arrangement is with respect to the things themselves.
We must take the values in context to determine their objective value.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 8:26 pmThere is no such thing as a square independent of lines, though lines may be arranged "squarely".

And there is no value without sentience. A sentient being has interests, and values things. Without sentient beings, there are no values to value, so morality can only be practiced with respect to sentient beings (past, present, and future).

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 8:26 pmThere is no such thing as ethics independent of values,

That's my constructive point; morality can only be constructed from values that already exist. It's kind of a meta system describing how to value values in a rational way.

An arbitrary or subjective "morality" like egoism, may instruct a person to only value his or her own values.
An objective one instructs us to respect the values of others.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 8:26 pmYou have done a perfect job of describing ethically-arranged values, but this does not permit a subjectively-dependent arrangement to jump the fence into objectivity.

Do you understand the distinction between the subjective "Chocolate is delicious" and the objective "Bob thinks/finds chocolate delicious"?
This is a crucial point. It is by this means that we translate the subjective into the objective.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 8:26 pmFor ethics to be objective, there would need to be some objective component. Being wholly derived from subjective values, this is simply not present. I am necessarily compelled by inescapable logic to hold my current position (being a person who values the arrangement of thought known as logic).

We could make the same argument about objectively evaluating the cooking skill of a chef.
Yes, taste is subjective, BUT we could objectively determine how good a chef is by presenting him with a population of patrons for whom he must prepare a dish. An ideal chef would prepare a dish that would satisfy all of their subjective tastes. A anti-ideal chef would make a dish they all found disgusting. We can plot the objective skill of the chef by analyzing the relationship of his works to the tastes of those who experience them.
In reality, it may never be possible to satisfy everybody, but a chef who is objectively better will satisfy more people and his cooking will be found disgusting by fewer people.

Even if I'm one of the people who finds his cooking gross, I must admit that he's an objectively good chef if his hit to miss ratio is very high and he's highly competent at satisfying the majority of patrons.

Like a chef's objective skill, we can evaluate actions as better or worse based on them satisfying the preferences of more subjects, and violating the preferences of fewer.

Everyone's contribution here is appreciated.

My purpose here was to tackle the arguments revolving only around morality, not on health or world impact. I felt that I failed to properly communicate my own arguments within the first 5 pages, that's why I walked away from my discussion with Brim. Brian seems to be doing a lot better job with the argumentation than I was/am.

Maybe Brian can confirm this with me, but basically we're promoting self-reliance (individuality/consciousness/wisdom) while you guys promote science and logic. We do not dismiss the latter entirely, however, without science, without philosophy, without religion, we would all have to rely on our own conscience, our own experiences for "Truth", whatever it may be.

From pages 5, 6 & 9:

BrianBlackwell: "We can have knowledge -- certain knowledge -- of our subjective experience."
brimstoneSalad: "Prove it."
______________________
BrianBlackwell: "Millions of people seeing the sun does not prove that the sun exists independent of a perceiver. In fact, noting that millions of people see the sun is merely a single instance of perception being experienced by you, as you have no access to the experience of others."
brimstoneSalad: "That's not how science works; it's not an appeal to a large number of anecdotes. We have methodology to control for bias."
______________________
BrianBlackwell: "Nobody has the slightest idea what's going on past the nose on their face; it's all just preferential assent and degrees of faith."
brimstoneSalad: "This is where it's obvious that you have no knowledge of or regard for science at all. This is exactly the problem science was adopted to address."
______________________
brimstoneSalad: "Bob thinks this is scary: Objective claim, fact, possesses objective truth value. Now that we have the subject, we could experiment on him if we wanted to prove it."
______________________

Brim, I believe this is the backbone of your position - the materialist worldview. For you, something must be "tested", "experimented" or require a "method" for it to (objectively) exist. But this is a self-imposed boundary that limits you to only see the things that fit these parameters. It's a self-fulfilling one because it only accepts as evidence those very things that it claims are the only things to exist.

We're not against science, we just don't believe that science can provide the deeper meaning, the wisdom (morality included) of any one individual. It is up to people to explore this mystery within themselves, an individual basis thing. Some people attempt this by taking up a religion, or hours of meditation and some take psychedelic substances. The person heavily invested in science cannot use science to explore the mystery of their inner being. If you believe otherwise, then you are making the mistake of surrendering your individuality in favor of an institution that is not capable of providing any True primary data of the individual self. Not to deduct too much from science, perhaps one day science may be able to grant us the tools for this exploration, and I have no doubt about it. It cannot do this in the meantime.

You have seen Brian & I quote Terence McKenna (a man who regarded himself as a "Scientist with no portfolio"). Going back to Brian's comment: "Nobody has the slightest idea what's going on past the nose on their face; it's all just preferential assent and degrees of faith." McKenna himself would often profess similar words. To make the point of this, here are comments I took from the comment section of my videos from people who share similar perspectives with both Brian & I.

1. "To me, the shaman is a person who realizes there are realities beyond logic and reason, beyond spoken and written language, and they have the ability to let go and explore those worlds. McKenna's talent was his ability to take what truths he knew, which he gathered from insights he obtained beyond the realms of logic and reason, and some how articulate them to some degree. At this point I'm almost 40 years old. I've been around long enough to realize nobody fully understands anything. I believe Terrence once said "Nobody knows jack shit." ha! i couldn't agree more! ... but one of the things i've learned for sure, through my own experience, is that reality is far more complicated, and far more beautifully strange, than any science or religion has ever managed to fully comprehend or articulate."

2. "All I'm saying is that the point McKenna is "attempting" to convey, again, which is REALLY fucking challenging (seriously you have no idea, Psychs unlock worlds that language just can't do justice) is that essentially, we are all in this clusterfuck of "knowing nothing" together. And that people with a mindset even slightly verging on absolutism are full of shit (this is EVERYONE, including me right now), he applies this in his other recordings to a plethora of different ideologies: Christianity, any institutional religion, or what have you."

3. "McKenna practically builds all his arguments on the very reasonable basis of "Nobody fucking knows absolutely anything, so why restrict yourself to an establishments ideology". The credence of scientific theory is equally as insupportable and unlikely than many other theories based on reasoning. The real problem is that all of these imposed theories operate on the foundation that what we can observe and calculate is the secret to unlocking the universe, and that there isn't anything else. Psychedelics reveal that B.S for what it is, a very nice stab at the universe, but that's all it is. That's all ANY theory is."

"There's a transcendental dimension beyond language, it's just hard as hell to talk about!" - Terence McKenna

Terence McKenna: Nobody Knows Jack Shit What Is Going On
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eGdKztd4TE