PDA

View Full Version : The New Revolution: Anarcho-Creatarianism




AlexMerced
08-25-2010, 10:21 PM
http://libertyisnow.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-revolution-anarcho-creatarianism.html


The New Revolution: Anarcho-Creatarianism
by Alex Merced

Many people call themselves many things yet come to the same conclusions, but many of us come to those conclusions for many reasons, for example...

Conservatives find themselves wanting to preserve traditional values of the United State which happen to be Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Libertarians value Liberty as an End in itself so policy that leads Liberty is the goal

an Individualist values the individual above all collectives

Anarchist find freedom from coercion and oppression as the utmost value while they may disagree how to manage resources once this is done (Anarcho-Capitalist versus Anarcho-Socialist)

Although while I agree with many of the views and conclusions of Anarchist, Libertarians, and Conservatives I can't say I really fit any of these philosophies in it's purest sense. At the end of the day my arch virtue, my chief principle is Creativity. So if I spent a moment and try to figure what you would call someone who's life doctrine focuses around Creativity and the term I came up with is...

Creatarian (Someone who holds the doctrine of Creation)

Although this word alone only explains the ends which is creativity/creation which also explains my disdain for it's antithesis, Destruction/Violence. Although what institution embodies violence more than government, which at the end of day is a monopoly on violence over a given people, so to emphasize this realization I figured I'd add the Anarcho pre-fix to emphasize this. Although I guess if you valued creativity and believed in government you'd be a Creatocrat (Rule/Strength by Creation).

Why have a Doctrine of Creation?

Well, I've always been someone who's loved creativity, loved music, art and anything that gives me new experiences. Creativity is Creation, and there is nothing greater than to create and bring something new into this world whether it be a song, an idea, or even a child. New is a beautiful thing, and if you live you life pursuing the creation of relationships, ideas, hope and anything else it can only lead to an enriching life. Vice Versa, living a life of destruction can only lead to life of misery as you live your life destroying relationships and hope around you.

So what are the views of an Anarcho-Creatarian?
(I'm now writing the Anarcho-Creatarian Manifesto, it'll be released soon)

Liberty: If you are an An-Creat you do value Liberty but not as an ends but as a means because having and valuing Liberty not only allows you the autonomy to be creative but also the mental autonomy, if you think it terms of liberty not only are your actions free'd so is your mind to generate endless ideas on how to create in the world around you.

Life: To give life is creation, to take it is destruction. Also, While people due to their liberty have the autonomy to live a life of destruction they cannot destroy the creations of another (homesteading).

War: Violence, especially war are acts of destruction and the aim of an An-Creat is to reduce destruction in the world and induce creation without violating anyones Liberty (since Liberty is pivotal to a Creative Environment)

Economics: An-Creat desires a strong economy because it fosters incentives for creativity and provides for more leisure and resources for society to pursue creative endeavors. So An-Creat is a strong support of real free market economics (Austrian Economics) in pursuit to these ends.

When the Anarcho-Creatarian Manifesto is created further issues will be illustrated and discussed, and hopefully this will begin the development of Creatarian Philosophy and Ethics.

I have Created a Facebook Page Anarcho-Creatarian if you want to join this new movement as it develops please search and join the page.

low preference guy
08-25-2010, 10:23 PM
lame.

AlexMerced
08-25-2010, 10:24 PM
lame.

:(

libertybrewcity
08-25-2010, 10:25 PM
nice

AlexMerced
08-25-2010, 10:26 PM
nice

:)

Kludge
08-25-2010, 10:48 PM
Adequate.

ChaosControl
08-25-2010, 10:51 PM
I like it.

I'd definitely be on board as a Creatarian, although I'm not anarcho. :D
Maybe a Localist-Creatarian :)

t0rnado
08-26-2010, 12:02 AM
Is this satire?

AlexMerced
08-26-2010, 05:01 AM
No, I'm actually going to develop this as a body of ethics and philosophy

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-26-2010, 05:04 AM
You do realize this "creation" is no different in reality as Free-Market entreprenuership right? You are trying to be too fancy.

RedStripe
08-26-2010, 05:07 AM
You do realize this "creation" is no different in reality as Free-Market entreprenuership right? You are trying to be too fancy.

lol and where's this free market in reality, as you say? or, where has it ever existed?

Oh, that's right, it's just the theoretical world you live in which is only half-based on the things that go on under state-capitalism.

AlexMerced
08-26-2010, 05:08 AM
I like it.

I'd definitely be on board as a Creatarian, although I'm not anarcho. :D
Maybe a Localist-Creatarian :)

Glad you like it, you and I usally have the same take on most things

to tell people about it you can point them to Creatarian.com or AnarchoCreatarian.com

and if you want email fowarding from either I can arrange that

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-26-2010, 05:09 AM
lol and where's this free market in reality, as you say? or, where has it ever existed?

Oh, that's right, it's just the theoretical world you live in which is only half-based on the things that go on under state-capitalism.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Try that out as a start.

AlexMerced
08-26-2010, 05:24 AM
You do realize this "creation" is no different in reality as Free-Market entreprenuership right? You are trying to be too fancy.

As far as positions on a lot of different issues, it's similar to Libertarianism, but the value and ethics system comes from a different tact and standpoint. Just cause they have the same views is like saying Conservativism is exactly like Libertarianism, while they come to the same conclusions it's for different reason.

Conservatism is free market out preservation of traditional american values

While Libertarian doesn't care about tradition, just liberty

Creatarian cares about Creation, and Liberty is conducive to that


A Creatarian isn't going to be a party, it's just another way at looking at things such as how some people call themsevles voluntarist or anarcho-capitalist. It helps people define the value set that brought them to these conclusions.

I was listening to the Mises U panel on Policy and it got me thinking when Block was saying there should be as many terms as possible for one to define themselves under these policy conclusion cause some will gravitate towards some and others but implied it would have along tail effect.

So I though real hard about what I believe and this is only the initial seed of it, next is the manifesto.

ClayTrainor
08-26-2010, 05:41 AM
lol and where's this free market in reality, as you say? or, where has it ever existed?


It exists wherever coercion does not. I traded blu-ray movies with my neighbor the other day. The transaction was not taxed or forced in any way. It was a free-market transaction.



Oh, that's right, it's just the theoretical world you live in which is only half-based on the things that go on under state-capitalism.

And where does true socialism exist? Oh that's right, its just the theoretical world you live in which is only half-based on the things that go on under statism.

BuddyRey
08-26-2010, 10:32 AM
Ignore the haters, Alex. I think you're onto something.

BuddyRey
08-26-2010, 11:20 AM
//

AlexMerced
08-26-2010, 12:25 PM
Ignore the haters, Alex. I think you're onto something.

thanks, I'm excited as I keep developing the manifesto the more I'm seeing how the creation/destruction binary is almost better framework for all the beliefs that I had a hard time linking together

I hope to have it all written I. The next couple of week join the facebok group in support

Old Ducker
08-26-2010, 12:29 PM
Presumably, Anarcho-Creatarians are pro-IP. :D

WaltM
08-26-2010, 12:44 PM
deleted

heavenlyboy34
08-26-2010, 12:47 PM
Whoever wrote the OP should do an LRC search for "Biblical Anarchy". ;):cool:

djdellisanti4
08-26-2010, 12:48 PM
One of your nicer works that I have read since joining RPF.

ClayTrainor
08-26-2010, 12:51 PM
One of your nicer works that I have read since joining RPF.

+1

I am intrigued, and will try to read the manifesto whenever you release it.

justinc.1089
08-26-2010, 12:54 PM
1. Conservatism and Libertarianism are not the same, and do not reach the same conclusions.

Example:

Conservatism strives to preserve the tradition in this country of not drinking, smoking pot, or using other drugs through different means. Traditionally smoking tobacco has been ok socially, so conservatism conserves people's right to smoke tobacco. Socially and morally it has been bad to drink alcohol, but not very bad, so conservatism generally conserves people's right to drink, but not without limit and often conservatism uses local law to further limit drinking alcohol. (SC's blue laws are a good example of that). Pot has been socially and morally considered wrong for awhile now in conservative areas of the country, so conservatism seeks to conserve a prohibition on smoking pot. Conservatism is not concerned with the country's roots in liberty from centuries ago, it is more interested in conserving today's social settings and moral beliefs, and therefore conserves today's moral belief and social setting against smoking pot. And the same goes for other drugs as well.

Libertarianism strives to preserve people's liberty to drink alcohol, smoke pot, and use other drugs. It is not concerned with traditions, social values, or morality, but is concerned with liberty first and foremost, because libertarians understand that a free society is the most humane and most prosperous kind of society. Conservatism does not understand that, and only seeks to conserve the current "good" aspects of society, whether those "good" aspects are from social conditions, values, or settings, or from moral beliefs and traditions.

That is also why conservatism changes, and is hard to define. Society changes despite conservatism trying to conserve it constantly. So different conservatives try to conserve different parts.

Reagan, at least supposedly, wanted to conserve the tradition of education being handled by the states. George Bush did not want to conserve that, nor do most current conservatives. Society changed, and conservatism forgot about conserving that part of society. So some people like most on here would rightly point out it is truly conservative to oppose the D.O.E, but other conservatives would not point that out because they no longer want to conserve that tradition. It changed in society, and they forgot about conserving it.

Libertarianism is concerned with freeing society, and in the process changing society.

Conservatism is interested in conserving society, and in the process keeping the good of society good and strong.

Classical Liberalism is interested in liberating society, and in the process changing society.


I just thought I would add in liberalism as well for those interested. You will note I put classical liberalism up, because that is where the current distortion of liberalism we have today came from. The goal of true/ classical liberalism being the same as modern day libertarianism is why the words are so similar. They both want to liberate society from the state.

I would not know what to say for current, modern-day liberalism because in my opinion it has no goal, and is not a true political philosophy since it is a distortion of true/ classical liberalism.

Many "liberals" today are truly socialists, marxists, lenninists, communists, fascists, authoritarians, and all around statists, so I would say modern day liberalism is truly more rightly just socialism.


2.

I'm failing to see where your supposed philosophy here is a philosophy at all. You say someone believing this philosophy thinks we should try to create all the time, and oppose destructive stuff. Honestly, what political philosophy would not agree with those statements?

Those are the goals of most or all political philosophies. The question is how can you achieve a more productive, prosperous, or *creative* society?

Conservatism says by conserving the best parts of society, so that it does not change for the worse.

Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism say by liberating the individual from the state so that they are free to do what they want.

Socialism says by giving the state the power to fix problems in society.


You can't just say we should all create stuff, and center our political ideas around that because every existing political philosophy I can think of already centers around that, but their differences are in their means or methods they propose to achieve a more creative/ productive society.

You're just playing with words here as far as I can tell.

Also, the appropriate word would be Creationism, not Creatarianism.

You're trying to avoid using that word because it is already common among religious philosophy, but it is the correct word to use for the political philosophy idea you're describing. (Although its not actually truly a political philosophy, but merely linguistics).

3.

You didn't define your idea here at all really.

For example, another poster assumed your Creatarianism would be pro IP rights. I don't know why they would assume that, other than maybe themselves being pro IP rights. Obviously they feel that IP rights cause more creation/ production in society, and assumed Creatarianism is pro IP because they are pro IP.

Personally I have not fully decided whether I am for or against the entire concept of IP because I have not done enough research on it, and I can't tell whether Creatarianism would be for or against it.

I could however tell if other political philosophies would be for or against IP, usually at least, because they are clearly defined, true philosophies.

4.

If you really study political philosophies, and really think about it, there are only 2 philosophies ultimately. The other supposed philosophies are only a mix of the two philosophies with linguistic differences. Conservatism is the ultimate example of a hybrid of the two political philosophies. It seeks to liberate private businesses from the state for example since that is a part of current American society values, but yet seeks to prohibit the business of selling pot. Those are two opposing political philosophies, but since conservatism is based around linguistics, the idea of "conserving American values," doing two opposing things somehow makes sense to conservatives.

(Because those conservative people have not thought it out, and realized their self-contradicting political philosophy).


The only two philosophies are Statism/ Authoritarianism and Libertarianism/ Classical Liberalism.


Everything else is merely linguistics, and/ or a hybrid of the two that contradicts itself.

Modern day liberalism contradicts itself too since most liberals would be in favor of legalizing pot, but also in favor of business regulations and taxations, because they think that legalizing pot is "liberating" people from going to jail over just smoking, and they think that regulating and taxing businesses will "liberate" the common man by taking wealth from a business and giving it to the common man.

So you can see even supposed gigantic political philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism are not really true political philosophies.

That fact is also what caused the rise of Neo-Conservatism. The early founders of Neo-Conservatism were originally socialists who finally saw some of their goals implemented by government, and fail. So they studied political philosophies more, and became socially conservative, and economically liberal. Being conservative socially generally means you oppose people being free to smoke pot and other things often relating to morality because conservatism seeks to conserve traditions, especially moral traditions. The founding Neo-Cons believe their economic policies failed because of their social policies. (I know, that makes no sense, but its the conclusion they came to). So they changed their social political philosophy from being liberal/ socialist, to being conservative.

And thus became truly statists/ authoritarians, but they stuck with the linguistics of course and called their philosophy neo-conservatism or maybe they themselves called it something else, I can't remember.

Do not however confuse older conservatism with libertarianism. Conservatism as a philosophy does not always side with liberty, although at a couple of points in American history conservatism has been very close to simply trying to conserve liberty, and was then at that particular time very similar to libertarianism. And that may be what you're thinking about.


So again, the only two real, true political philosophies are statism/ authoritarianism/ socialism and libertarianism/ classical liberalism.


And those do NOT come to the same conclusion for different reasons, but come to different conclusions for the same reasons. (Society has problems, so we can either leave everyone alone, or we can give someone the power to boss everyone around to make everyone behave).

Cowlesy
08-26-2010, 12:55 PM
Adequate.

wow

AlexMerced
08-26-2010, 02:16 PM
I'm not trying to create a political philosophy, this more about of a framework for how to look at things, many of your concerns will be addresses in the manifesto. I used the -Tarian suffix for a reason, although liguostics just as important the ideas themselves cause everybody has some overarching framework with which they view the world and this an attempt to detail my framework in a cohesive philosophy people can use to adapt or reflect upon their own frameworks.



1. Conservatism and Libertarianism are not the same, and do not reach the same conclusions.

Example:

Conservatism strives to preserve the tradition in this country of not drinking, smoking pot, or using other drugs through different means. Traditionally smoking tobacco has been ok socially, so conservatism conserves people's right to smoke tobacco. Socially and morally it has been bad to drink alcohol, but not very bad, so conservatism generally conserves people's right to drink, but not without limit and often conservatism uses local law to further limit drinking alcohol. (SC's blue laws are a good example of that). Pot has been socially and morally considered wrong for awhile now in conservative areas of the country, so conservatism seeks to conserve a prohibition on smoking pot. Conservatism is not concerned with the country's roots in liberty from centuries ago, it is more interested in conserving today's social settings and moral beliefs, and therefore conserves today's moral belief and social setting against smoking pot. And the same goes for other drugs as well.

Libertarianism strives to preserve people's liberty to drink alcohol, smoke pot, and use other drugs. It is not concerned with traditions, social values, or morality, but is concerned with liberty first and foremost, because libertarians understand that a free society is the most humane and most prosperous kind of society. Conservatism does not understand that, and only seeks to conserve the current "good" aspects of society, whether those "good" aspects are from social conditions, values, or settings, or from moral beliefs and traditions.

That is also why conservatism changes, and is hard to define. Society changes despite conservatism trying to conserve it constantly. So different conservatives try to conserve different parts.

Reagan, at least supposedly, wanted to conserve the tradition of education being handled by the states. George Bush did not want to conserve that, nor do most current conservatives. Society changed, and conservatism forgot about conserving that part of society. So some people like most on here would rightly point out it is truly conservative to oppose the D.O.E, but other conservatives would not point that out because they no longer want to conserve that tradition. It changed in society, and they forgot about conserving it.

Libertarianism is concerned with freeing society, and in the process changing society.

Conservatism is interested in conserving society, and in the process keeping the good of society good and strong.

Classical Liberalism is interested in liberating society, and in the process changing society.


I just thought I would add in liberalism as well for those interested. You will note I put classical liberalism up, because that is where the current distortion of liberalism we have today came from. The goal of true/ classical liberalism being the same as modern day libertarianism is why the words are so similar. They both want to liberate society from the state.

I would not know what to say for current, modern-day liberalism because in my opinion it has no goal, and is not a true political philosophy since it is a distortion of true/ classical liberalism.

Many "liberals" today are truly socialists, marxists, lenninists, communists, fascists, authoritarians, and all around statists, so I would say modern day liberalism is truly more rightly just socialism.


2.

I'm failing to see where your supposed philosophy here is a philosophy at all. You say someone believing this philosophy thinks we should try to create all the time, and oppose destructive stuff. Honestly, what political philosophy would not agree with those statements?

Those are the goals of most or all political philosophies. The question is how can you achieve a more productive, prosperous, or *creative* society?

Conservatism says by conserving the best parts of society, so that it does not change for the worse.

Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism say by liberating the individual from the state so that they are free to do what they want.

Socialism says by giving the state the power to fix problems in society.


You can't just say we should all create stuff, and center our political ideas around that because every existing political philosophy I can think of already centers around that, but their differences are in their means or methods they propose to achieve a more creative/ productive society.

You're just playing with words here as far as I can tell.

Also, the appropriate word would be Creationism, not Creatarianism.

You're trying to avoid using that word because it is already common among religious philosophy, but it is the correct word to use for the political philosophy idea you're describing. (Although its not actually truly a political philosophy, but merely linguistics).

3.

You didn't define your idea here at all really.

For example, another poster assumed your Creatarianism would be pro IP rights. I don't know why they would assume that, other than maybe themselves being pro IP rights. Obviously they feel that IP rights cause more creation/ production in society, and assumed Creatarianism is pro IP because they are pro IP.

Personally I have not fully decided whether I am for or against the entire concept of IP because I have not done enough research on it, and I can't tell whether Creatarianism would be for or against it.

I could however tell if other political philosophies would be for or against IP, usually at least, because they are clearly defined, true philosophies.

4.

If you really study political philosophies, and really think about it, there are only 2 philosophies ultimately. The other supposed philosophies are only a mix of the two philosophies with linguistic differences. Conservatism is the ultimate example of a hybrid of the two political philosophies. It seeks to liberate private businesses from the state for example since that is a part of current American society values, but yet seeks to prohibit the business of selling pot. Those are two opposing political philosophies, but since conservatism is based around linguistics, the idea of "conserving American values," doing two opposing things somehow makes sense to conservatives.

(Because those conservative people have not thought it out, and realized their self-contradicting political philosophy).


The only two philosophies are Statism/ Authoritarianism and Libertarianism/ Classical Liberalism.


Everything else is merely linguistics, and/ or a hybrid of the two that contradicts itself.

Modern day liberalism contradicts itself too since most liberals would be in favor of legalizing pot, but also in favor of business regulations and taxations, because they think that legalizing pot is "liberating" people from going to jail over just smoking, and they think that regulating and taxing businesses will "liberate" the common man by taking wealth from a business and giving it to the common man.

So you can see even supposed gigantic political philosophies such as liberalism and conservatism are not really true political philosophies.

That fact is also what caused the rise of Neo-Conservatism. The early founders of Neo-Conservatism were originally socialists who finally saw some of their goals implemented by government, and fail. So they studied political philosophies more, and became socially conservative, and economically liberal. Being conservative socially generally means you oppose people being free to smoke pot and other things often relating to morality because conservatism seeks to conserve traditions, especially moral traditions. The founding Neo-Cons believe their economic policies failed because of their social policies. (I know, that makes no sense, but its the conclusion they came to). So they changed their social political philosophy from being liberal/ socialist, to being conservative.

And thus became truly statists/ authoritarians, but they stuck with the linguistics of course and called their philosophy neo-conservatism or maybe they themselves called it something else, I can't remember.

Do not however confuse older conservatism with libertarianism. Conservatism as a philosophy does not always side with liberty, although at a couple of points in American history conservatism has been very close to simply trying to conserve liberty, and was then at that particular time very similar to libertarianism. And that may be what you're thinking about.


So again, the only two real, true political philosophies are statism/ authoritarianism/ socialism and libertarianism/ classical liberalism.


And those do NOT come to the same conclusion for different reasons, but come to different conclusions for the same reasons. (Society has problems, so we can either leave everyone alone, or we can give someone the power to boss everyone around to make everyone behave).

Acala
08-26-2010, 02:58 PM
Anarcho-creatarianism seems to combine what is essentialy a political system with a personal value system. By contrast, an-cap, an-socialist, and an-syndicalist combine political systems with economic systems rather than personal value systems.

So are you proposing Anarcho-creatarianism as a combination of a political system with a system of personal values? Or does some kind of economic system derive from creatarianism?

In my signature you will see that I have developed my own system that combines the political values of libertarianism with the personal values of social harmony. I tried to distill a statement of my philosophy down to bumper sticker size, but didn't try to give it a name.

AlexMerced
08-26-2010, 06:05 PM
Well in the Manifesto I argue many of systems already established fit values of Creatarianism, like homesteading and austrian economics is all consistent. Although Austrian economics is consistent with any social values cause it's valueless discipline, it's just about cause and effect, what conclusion that leads you depends on your value structure.

AlexMerced
08-27-2010, 08:03 AM
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-arian

I think I formed a fairly accurate word for what I'm trying to get across.

For those wondering what sparked this Walter Block was discussing on the mises institutie panel on policy about different terms people use to describe themselves whether people should use words like anarchy, libertarian, or liberal to define themselves and he made the argument that the more terms the merrier.

I encourage listening to the panel, it was quite a stimulative discussion

idirtify
08-27-2010, 10:55 AM
AM,

When you create a creatarianist manifesto, will you create a section that addresses the protection of creatarianism?

justinc.1089
08-27-2010, 11:18 AM
Alex you're right about linguistics being important since people use linguistics in how they perceive the world.

So maybe creatarian in that sense is better than creationism, but still, creatarian sounds ridiculously funny, and people will say its not even a word just like I said.

So I'm not sure which is better, but I still lean towards creationism or an entirely different word.


If you aren't trying to come up with your own political philosophy, I don't get the point of this honestly lol. Its a way of looking at the world... ok? I don't know what that means. If its a perspective, thats pretty much the same thing as a political philosophy because there are those that look at the world from the perspective of believing a state is needed to guide society, and there is the perspective that people can lead their own lives just fine without a state to guide them too.

I mean those are perspectives to look at the world from... so how does this perspective differ from those two perspectives? Is it a mix?

I'm thinking its a hybrid mixture of the two philosophies just like Conservatism and modern day liberalism. Liberalism is a play on the word liberal distorting the old philosophy into endorsing some statist ideas, and Conservatism is a play on the word conservation endorsing some statist ideas and some classical liberal/ libertarian ideas.

I think you're just playing with words here and thinking its something new, but still, I will read whatever you have wrote when its finished and reserve my opinion until then.

I might just not get what you're saying enough and may change my opinion if I read more about your idea, whatever it is lol.



But don't stop thinking and learning about everything though! Its great you're thinking about things like this.

AlexMerced
08-28-2010, 11:48 AM
Alex you're right about linguistics being important since people use linguistics in how they perceive the world.

So maybe creatarian in that sense is better than creationism, but still, creatarian sounds ridiculously funny, and people will say its not even a word just like I said.

So I'm not sure which is better, but I still lean towards creationism or an entirely different word.


If you aren't trying to come up with your own political philosophy, I don't get the point of this honestly lol. Its a way of looking at the world... ok? I don't know what that means. If its a perspective, thats pretty much the same thing as a political philosophy because there are those that look at the world from the perspective of believing a state is needed to guide society, and there is the perspective that people can lead their own lives just fine without a state to guide them too.

I mean those are perspectives to look at the world from... so how does this perspective differ from those two perspectives? Is it a mix?

I'm thinking its a hybrid mixture of the two philosophies just like Conservatism and modern day liberalism. Liberalism is a play on the word liberal distorting the old philosophy into endorsing some statist ideas, and Conservatism is a play on the word conservation endorsing some statist ideas and some classical liberal/ libertarian ideas.

I think you're just playing with words here and thinking its something new, but still, I will read whatever you have wrote when its finished and reserve my opinion until then.

I might just not get what you're saying enough and may change my opinion if I read more about your idea, whatever it is lol.



But don't stop thinking and learning about everything though! Its great you're thinking about things like this.




Yeah, if it helps any here's an excerpt from the manifesto where I talk about Life, I haven't gotten to the editing process yet so this is rough so forgive any grammar and spelling mistakes.





Machinery can be used create physical goods, books and writing can be used to create knowledge, although a book or machine by itself is only an object which intrinsically only exists and doesn’t create. In order for a Machine or a Book to create it must be combined with the Life of some being such as humanity. Life is a necessary condition for creation to be possible; in actuality life is the only thing that is intrinsically creative. So when a life is destroyed the driver of creation is destroyed and the larger collective spectrum of possibility has been reduced from what it could have been. There is no greater more immoral destruction for a Creatarian than that of life, the driver of all creation.
Some may say humanity is what separates us from the animal, although I would contend animals with their lives and existence are just as capable of creation. Humanity unlike life is not a necessary condition for creation, for example beavers create dams, birds create nests, and bees create a hive but don’t have humanity. Humanity has no bearing on one’s ability to create, but life has everything to do with it. A dead human can’t create knowledge from a book, a dead beaver cannot create a dam, once life is gone so is the possibility of creation.
A conundrum is that life in order to persist must consume other life over time; this should not be looked on as destruction but as transformation of the spectrum of possibility. When life consumes life whether a cheetah eats a gazelle or a human eats chicken or cows it is done to extend their own creativity inter-temporally, or over time. By extending one’s own life by the consumption of other life the time frame in which that life can create is extended. Although this transformation of where possibility exists shouldn’t be taken for granted and the consumer should aim to exceed the creation of the life it consumed.
Although when a life ends by means other than consumption this is destruction. That life was not used to transform and or extend the realm of possibility but instead no longer exists and thus shortens it. When a human murders another human, the murderer has violated the sacrosanct of creative possibility in the life he took. This is where Creatarian ethics begins to form as one begins to understand how the creative process is extended and strengthened, versus shortened and destroyed.

AlexMerced
08-28-2010, 11:52 AM
AM,

When you create a creatarianist manifesto, will you create a section that addresses the protection of creatarianism?

In what sense, if you mean what I think you mean then yes there will be something along those lines in there.

I'm trying to develop fairly consistent almost praxeological arguments

BlackSand
08-28-2010, 12:26 PM
I like the idea behind it. It kind of remind me of a book I read by Orson Scott Card called The Seventh Son or Alvin Maker or something like that (I only read the first in the series). But the gist of it was that there are two opposing forces in the world, creativity and destruction. The main character is a Maker. He creates. And the main antagonist is that which destroys, represented by water (which is odd since all life comes from water). It was an interesting concept to me then. OSC talked a bit about how destruction is the ultimate evil.

Your idea is along the same vein. Were here to create. If we dont create, we might as well not exist. Actually somewhat reminds me of the Distributionism philosophy (not capitalism, but not socialism). Based in Christian philosophy. God created us to create. And so we create to be like him.

idirtify
08-28-2010, 01:54 PM
In what sense, if you mean what I think you mean then yes there will be something along those lines in there.

I'm trying to develop fairly consistent almost praxeological arguments

I can’t be much clearer. Will your manifesto include anything that addresses the protection of creatarianism?

AlexMerced
08-28-2010, 11:33 PM
I can’t be much clearer. Will your manifesto include anything that addresses the protection of creatarianism?

Do you mean the protection from counter arguments, then yes

If you mean the protection from something else, you'll need to specify