Switch

Yes. That I have switched around the postulated narrative position. Of course, maybe this is a switching, and needs comparison to clinic in Lacanian - I'm not quite a'la mode. Absolutely not for testing at the early life. I find a lot of that "science" abhorrent, unconsentable, invasive. One only has to note Pinker, S to consider the level of stupid.

MetaEthic description or WorldWriting sketch

The trouble is the psychopath (biological) whose fantasy (that they do not have without thorough examination) exists as an act - a peculiar cheat - that supports the far worse sociopathy. The failure throughout them is to grant others a life outside their own - they are making others rent rooms in their heads to their troubles, yet claim moral superiority simply for paying up (we see this in findom - there are no doubt many endings only few are privy to the facts of).

I have avoided sociopathy and can treat my spleen to avoid the strike of the riboflavin drop when angered. The precision of thought, no doubt habituated over decades yet often demeured, avoided for not simply the consequences but from a learning of life, of chance deserved. I know my simple fantasy - film-making I can do among other pursuits - is that of composing, recording, music. I get that it belongs as a daydream, I have tried though the sheer shutting off of all else is not in my skillset - well, chance does deliver proof of talent and maybe I'll get down to it, move another fantasy into play? This is not of my objet a and all. That is simply abstracting space visually and the all is of sleep.

So we have these failures, tangled in living fantasy, only alive for moral superiority; until the expected great reveal of death, we can suppose (in hell they would not be good company) they expect an afterlife?

What we judge on them is not from the morality surround that doubtless inspires their gambit, which they fear and expect we may act from against them. We judge them on the pathetic cheap thrill that feeds them at the expense of other lives that are left to attempt survival in that morality surround. That they would destroy, with growing abandon, all fantasized threats yet not their cheap thrill (which is of set of many in the mismanaged concepts of the Oedipal, at least that is where we would begin an analysis I suggest) which began as some rite of identity - not in "genes" - that arrives in idioms, vernacular, the colloquial - for we all make flesh animal without the human by the human, sublime, skill of total inattention to Time?

As I can attest the greatest threat to achieving a difference is physical illness. Again the moral surround will determine of those similar by several different approximations the same cause - not demons or a god's sentencing (it is, of course, in literal sentencing several and different) but genes. And that in this time is their god-like sentence on others.

It may be they can only test their own death and with better wishes than the posthumous reveal should they achieve their deepest move for freedom? This is a better alternative the slow fracture, the taphonomy of their motives preserved for as long as civilisation obtains?

The vastest difficulty is the habituation to sadism - for want a better term - that in this long grief is exercised at persons from the fantasy of "genes". I subscribe to a holobiontia, a epigenetically derived starting point that determines nothing that can be called personality or identity. It only determines abstract sensitivities that are - by lights of Arrival of the Fittest - avenues to change by choice. It is, perhaps, our greatest obstacle that we depend on speech to the detriment of improving our animal humanity.

This is a predicament that is not infrequent, yet frequently unapprehended. I was not going to press a philosophical shape to the description. That is quite another text.

I think this a worthwhile accompaniment:
https://youtu.be/YiivnaT9V28

And further

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/neurosciencenews.com/nordrenaline-fear-learning-7512/amp/#ampshare=http://neurosciencenews.com/nordrenaline-fear-learning-7512/

Further

http://neurosciencenews.com/memory-rna-neuroscience-8025/amp/

I don't know why this isn't publishing at my Medium

https://medium.com/@4e7d367bca41/9b2bb380d4d9

An ethical perspective on the astronomical

Martin Rees published in Aeon meanders, with brevity if not alacrity, on his repeated consumption of Revelations I wonder?
It is, to my thinking, indisputable that humans are mediated by their inventions. So the problem is not a shortcoming of our brains that will be surmounted by a technological transhumanism, nor is that the yoke by which capitalism or otherwise controls are apprehension. The problem is the persistent accusation that we don't know. "you don't know..." was oft retorted when atheism was reported in the classroom, the schoolyard. Twice over in the twentieth century British schools were staffed by semi PTSD-ed male teachers, the result of two world wars. It wasn't that one didn't know God and they did. Indeed, that's the melancholia desiring problem they had, they didn't want to know whether they did or not have a theological fix, but sure as shit you weren't to write off their frustrations and reliefs on the question by claiming there was nothing. Martin Rees reminds me of them, the pupils cloned of them.
It's not a mystery, that can only be gotten around by God granting technology, what the intricacies of some minutiae manifesting as infection or a brook rock pool biome are. It is no less mysterious that those inhabiting a position of authority craned through their career to gain public recognition and very little contact with the ground, known as Meritocracy, often insist "You don't know". So it goes that discoveries are sublimely dismissed for the habit of a depression the release from which would collapse the encumbent position of morality.

Droning on Daesh

What security authorities, I take they are pretending to, ignore is that it is only the violence that the Daesh display that attracted recruits to the sufficient supplement of being Muslim.

I know from anecdote that non-Muslims watch DVDs with delight in the Daesh disposition, and doubtless much envy for a opportunity to emulate it.

National Action, or whatever they call themselves, in the UK are exactly what "profiling" cannot prevent. This exactly why I supported meta-data gathering, in debate on public transit (specifically airports) points utilising security technology. I was disappointed, though not surprised, that a Green MEP from Germany, pretending intelligence, endorsed profiling as the privacy protecting preference.

This is to accompany my thread on twitter that endorses the killing or lifetime imprisonment of Daesh. It has nothing to with their Islamic accessorisation. The stealth of some of the intelligence community to propagate more atrocity in our lives by crusading hippy-like with pseudo-philosophical oppositions to a supposed paradox in not respecting the necessity of allowing for redemption is a mockery of, not least, our deployed military. We do not see their work defending civilians by eliminating aggressors as something for which they need redemption, unless we are moralists without any grounds for our judgement since the precarious profession has, probably, not been ours.
Of course they kill, and know beforehand so. But it is not their proclivity to impose a personal dedication to reduce us all to living in those circumstances for their own pleasure in excuse provided by some entity divorced of all contact except by representatives who often are the most depraved by a continuity of tutelage.

Still, those hollowed out walking dead are amongst our own defence forces and security operatives. They cannot be profiled anymore than appearing non-white and stressed can be different from white and stressed, both on the same gig of travelling or being unemployed. Only meta-data derived linkages can capture, and securely effective by allowing separate enforcement agencies simultaneous access, the terrorists and cramp the muscular games of attrition that others, their virtual sponsors, would have imposed on us so as to bring submission to authoritarian pressure.