Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?

[DLJ]

I’ve been staring so hard at that damned model for over 3 days now that my head is spinning so I thought I’d better type a reply or you’d think I’d disappeared.

First thing of note was the realisation on Sunday morning (it’s Monday night now) of the similarity of the 3 Worlds diagram to the first slide of a presentation I used to rope a Biologist and a Psychologist into assisting with my current project. Of course, with my flair for the pretentious I called the three circles (which overlapped, Venn style), Aphrodite, Psyche and Demeter to represent Biology (reproduction), Psychology and Society (sacred law) - which also covered the specialist fields of the three of us.
Credit where it’s due to the Greeks in naming the grandchild of Aphrodite and the daughter of Psyche, Hedone. They knew their shit.
The intersection of the three circles had a “You Are Here” arrow.

And this could be where I’m struggling with the diagram. If the circles overlapped rather than represented a flow it might make more sense. However I am considering changing Demeter to Athena (representing Wisdom) to see if that works more betterly.

Anyway... it’s stuff like the word “books” in World 3 that has me puzzled. Physical media / the carrier of information only exists in World 1 so yeah I get that the concept of Sherlock Holmes resides in World 3 and he has to get into a book (or kindle) in World 1 before he can be read about in World 2... so all the arrows make sense: imagination > invention > signals.
We must conclude from this that Sherlock-the-concept has no physical substance while in World 3. Does he have a metaphorical substrate? We can ask Jordan Peterson.

And yes, apologies @vulcanlogician I called the bottom arrow “data input”. Old habit. Data input or data entry and access channels is how I think of it. My Biologist usually thwacks me when I do that and mutters “stimuli” under her breath. To me it’s the same thing.

So how about god(s)?  Yup, that works. Same as Sherlock. And god modifies the physical world (left arrow) by shutting down Planned Parenthood (not on his own, of course. He gets help).

So far so good. The model I’m hoping for allows for shitty ideas as well as good scientific ideas.

Will god stay in his metaphorical form with all the other explanatory knowledge that’s in there? Of course not; he gets reified into world 1 and the access channel (bottom arrow) is prayer (I guess).

So where is the actual, physical god? we ask.
In World 1 says the congregation, in unison, arms raised skyward.
How do you know he’s real? we enquire.
We feel him in our hearts, comes the reply.
Well, I guess we can’t argue with that.

This is why I’d prefer to have a World 0 tucked behind World 1. They can claim that gods and djinns and angels are in the unknown-unknown realm (and they do claim that) but they’d need to explain how god gets into World 1 from World 0.

If they say “you can’t prove he’s not in World 0”, we say “sure, but then you can’t make claims about his properties and attributes unless he’s in observable World 1, so STFU”.

The first stanza of the Tao Te Ching explains that you don’t know the Tao if you can talk about the Tao. Bingo! World 0 Tao is ‘eternally nameless’. Nice one.

So to acquiesce to the protests about World 0, I’m imagining World 1 with two parts: known and unknown (or discovered and not yet discovered). Over the millennia Science has shifted the division of the circle in favour of ‘discovered’. And Science’s one job is to finish that task.
Radiation is a good example.

Humans have evolved some quite cool access channels. Senses include:
Touch, taste, smell, sound, light, colour*, temperature, pH
Distance, proximity, movement, edges, direction, location (space and time), passing of time, loss
Balance, pain, discomfort, comfort, injustice, fraud, deceit, lies etc.
... but not radiation.

*yes, I’m a Brit. But I lived in Oz for a couple of years so I have a smattering of Strayan

But then from World 2 comes a thought which turns into a theory and a concept then an invention and the Geiger Counter is born into World 1. This creates a new source of data.

Science FTW.

Now comes a sticking point.
In the summary of Popper’s essay he notes:
“The feedback effect between World 3 and World 2 is of particular importance. Our minds are the creators of World 3; but World 3 in its turn not only informs our minds but largely creates them.”

How is that shown on the model? The right-hand arrow is not bi-directional. And what about the assurance/assessment process to ascertain the quality of World 3 knowledge? Assessing for truth, credibility, objectivity, accuracy, reputation of sources etc. ... when does that happen? Before the interpretation of the physical world leaves World 2 or afterwards?

More to follow. My phone can’t cope with the length of this monologue.

---

Regarding “objective”.

The object of my objective objection is ‘objective’ for the objective reason that @Belaqua indicates ... its proneness to equivocation e.g. “universal and eternal” or “objectivity”.

Also, if (from post #136) “The objective refers to true statements about the object”... aren’t Sherlock and gods subjects?

I’d be happier if World 2 was labelled “Explanatory Knowledge” or “Actionable Information”.

Also, since we haven’t discussed ‘knowledge’ yet, for future reference, here are some definitions that I’ll be using (they’re not textbook but they’re close enough):
Data, Information
Objective, Subjective *
Knowledge, Wisdom
Ethics, Morals **

* The video claims that “Morality is not objective” which is correct but the claim “morality is opinion” is also not the whole picture.
** “Morals” isn’t quite right as there’s no separation of noun and verb, ‘a moral’ vs. ‘to be moral’ and a misuse or misunderstanding of ‘culture’. But that’s for later discussion.