Excerpts
From another story we might have experienced a first conflict involving ethics. "Without doubt, our fish had a knowledge that he was living in water and not a perception; there was nothing to see at all. What he could perceive was his complex world full of strange stuff, and this funny fish girl. But not the water. What the fish girl didn’t know, neither Heinz, was that he properly acted according to Heinz’ CybernEthical Imperative:
"Always act to augment the amount of possibilities of the others!"
But he, our fish, not Heinz, didn’t accept the fish girl’s ignorance to try to reduce the necessities of his insights. Therefore, intuitively, his dual imperative of Heinz’s altruistic maxim came into force.
"Never contemplate to reduce the amount of necessities of yours!"
This dual maxim has to be set into a complementary maxim to conflict the Golden Rule of ethics. This is not simply involving a negation of selfless altruism, hence selfishness, but a first step into a liberation of ethics from ontology.
Only if we accept the slavery of classical logics, which is declared as universal, natural and ultimate, again and again, we would have to believe that a rejection of altruism must necessarily be an affirmation of selfish egoism. The fish was not selfish but true to the alter-ego of his fish girl.
This intricate togetherness of a dual imperative for actions, which always are a composition of actions and never occur in the majesty of a singularity, is highly intriguing and needs, thus, a formalization in an appropriate formalism, like the diamond category theory, which is offering additional space for the togetherness of complementary and antidromic statements.
Therefore, the two imperatives have to be embedded into a complementary and reflectional interplay:
Co-CybernEthics
"Always act to augment the amount of possibilities of the others!"
"Never contemplate to reduce the amount of necessities of yours!"
Universal, fundamental, natural, global
Universal human rights are declared as universally valid and fundamental; as holding universally. What to do, if we don’t belief in a universe in which human rights could hold. What if we belief, instead, not in a uni-verse but in a pluri-verse or a multi-verse or even neither in a uni-/pluri- nor in any -verse at all? Are we then still entitled to be respected by the intentions of the Human Rights?
And if we still are entitled to be respected by the human rights, do we really want to be honored by an idea of humanity, which is stupidifying its members in such a radical way? Wouldn’t it be a better choice to search for chances of post-technological trans-humanism?
Co-Article-0:Diamondization of the declarations
Everybody has the right to be a human being.
No human being has the obligation to remain as a human being.
Article 1
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.[...]"
No human beings are born non-free. No free born being is human. No born being is human. All human beings are different in dignity and rights. All dignities and rights are equal to different human beings. All dignities and rights are different to equal human beings. No dignities and rights are equal to different human beings.
Co-Article-1:Article 2
All human beings are equal.
No equal is a human being.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration [...]."
Nobody is entitled to all rights and freedoms in this Declaration. There is no Declaration for everyone to be entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration. There is nothing set forth for the rights and freedoms of everyone. Everyone is free. Nobody is free. Nobody is unfree. No free one is everybody.
Co-Articel-2:This game of deconstruction has to be played situatively, every time, until an agreement is reached in the actual group as a result of contextural, i.e., interactional, reflectional and interventional, negotiations.
Every one is free.
No free one is everybody.
FULL TEXT: http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Chez_Maxime/Chez_Maxime.html
No comments:
Post a Comment