Relativity of morality

In response to your original statements of the post.

If one seeks within and asks the question ...Does SELF exist?....as one is not sure what SELF is or whether SELF exists the doubt causes division.As one cannot provide any definitive PROOF of whether SELF exists or not and neither can the biological machine (brain) all both parties can do is HOPE that SELF exists or not.

The biological machine will do its best in answering the question however and churn out 4 possible scenarios ( as listed below) that equally apply to inward or outward
deliberations.Outward deliberations being when one asks another person.

1.0,0...Both deliberating parties HOPE that SELF doesn’t exist.

2.0,1... One HOPES that SELF exists ,the other doesn’t.
3.1,0....One HOPES that SELF exists ,the other doesn’t.
4.1,1... Both deliberating parties HOPE that SELF exists.

As all 4 off outputs are embroiled together the end conclusion is a DON’T know whether SELF exists or not.

One therefore realises that if one does go inward or outward seeking answers to the original question of whether SELF exists or not then all that SELF and the biological machine (brain) can do is provide scenarios of HOPE as no definitive PROOF one way or the other is available.

However,one is AWARE of the EXPERIENCE and the difference between inward/outward meditation in the to asking of the original question.

If the same 4 off outputs apply to the question of ...is there a difference between good and bad ?....one gets,

1.Bad is Bad.
2.Bad is Good.
3.Good is Bad.
4.Good is Good.

Most modern day philosophers only want to consider items 2.and 3. outputs in their deliberations as indeed you have in your original post which is wrong simply because there is no PROOF that Good is Bad and Bad is Good as EVERYONE knows.

As you have no PROOF that morality is relative you can only HOPE it is relative ...[I do note that you have said “IF” in your postulate 1. which is a wise choice of word....].

In summary,I just wanted to point out to you that the remainder of your statements following your postulate 1.have the potential to be a LIE.

Why?....because if Good is Good and Bad is Bad as items 1. and 4. outputs of the biological computer state then this means there is a difference between Good and Bad and morality and rules DO exist.

Both sides of the internal seeking fence therefore have the potential to be good or bad OR darkness OR light..,,or a TRUTH OR a LIE.Also,both sides of the fence cancel out whether one only utilises 2 and 3 output HOPE scenarios or whether one utilises all four output HOPE scenarios.

Quite simply, this theory is Chaotic, produces nothing of stability, and thus, nothing would appear solidified. All would remain a Water. A chaotic water at that.

I totally agree with your statement about the post originators opening statement.

Now we are talking about "momentum", affecting "belief", and "belief" is clearly the "first action".

Momentum, here again, does not determine Truth, but does in fact Force said Momentum.

Consider Force:

A Force requires Potential Energy, to become more forceful. Else it uses the encapsulated energy given it, and dies after it runs out of "energy". Example being, throwing a ball. The ball only has as much energy to go as far as I throw it. Now, the said ball could be "encouraged" by another, travelling in somewhat the same direction, if the timing is right, but will of course change the direction, however slight.

My point here is the division required for Force, and the eventual ending of all that which Forces.

Regardless how Forceful, Resistance is Absolutely necessary.

With me? Because this is about to get way heavy....

To Resist that which Forces, Absolutely Resist, is to dissolve all opposition to the Peaceful one. Allowing nothing to steal one's peace.

This indeed would be a (f)ire.

The ancient philosophers have said to "make fire afraid of (F)ire".

Oh, and, that "their Fire is a Water".

Belief is required whereby understanding/controlling consciousness states is concerned.One must CONSCIOUSLY come out of autopilot which requires conscious effort (force).However, there is resistance to one remaining in manual.I agree that controlling (stilling) the movement (toggling) between consciousness states is a challenge that needs to be overcome. Understanding consciousness types and how SELF interacts with them is the key that opens doors into new insights.

Sir Jasper, the way eye see it, one only needs to make the first Water, to understand

Two Waters, the alchemists claim.

"Four and three and two and one'
when I'm on the mic, the sucka's run"
-- Beastie Boys

I can only say it the way I see it.

If heaven and earth pass away what is left?

A presence within a space that is completely dark?

What is presence doing there?

Is it really full of darkness if presence is there?

All that is Life, is all that there ever is, was, or will be.

All that opposes Life, is death.

If Truth, then Life.

If Life, then Truth.

Truth and Life assert what IS.

They do not allow for what "is not".

Hence yet further, Eternal.... Always.... Unchanging....

But, it is we who give life to lies....

And we who suffer the Experience of those lies believed.

Consider the word, "Believe"....

To "be alive"??

English Cabala??

Why not?



I'm not preaching at you my friend, I enjoy our convo. I only see what I see as well. Just been ripping it to pieces for years now, to find out why I believe whatever is at the core?

I have come to the decision that there "is", only Truth, and that Life, grows. Death consumes.

Now there is also the legality involved in these matters, because Life is not ours, to do with as we will. I mean, we can, but then we feed death.

Follow?

What about Justice?

If we spend our life, feeding death, and all that opposes life, Justice would say that through our Experiences, we did not learn, and thus at the departure from this world of Experience, we would be assigned to suffer what we fed, without the Life being taken from this hellish realm of retribution. Forever tormented, separated from all hope, nothing making any sense whatsoever, and this maintained by Life having given us a free will choice over what to feed??

Justified, by our choices.

Just how I see it.

Now. Not so much until the last 5 years.

Daughters are awesome

No!
Death is the reset where you give back to the world what the world gave to you in the first place. A zero sum result in perfect balance.

There is no wrong doing in Reality...nothing is contingent and everything is necessary! Even psychopaths in small numbers work as apex predators to control the "grazers" and keep society awaken on its toes!
(Poor things without free will wrecking havoc around by genetic decree)

As for Ethics, well Ethics is the end result more visible in mammal Evolution to get complex group tasking and behaviour done that otherwise would not be possible.

What is good for the collective as a whole results in ethical behaviour....and yes it can be seen in animals to, tried and tested! These days we call it Neo Darwinism...

A Queen without its bees gets nothing done!

By the way the root base of Ethical and even Moral behaviour is so Universal and so not relative that as I previously mentioned it can be traced back to a bunch of animals...even some birds do have it! In all, the focus on fairness is present!

We complicated Humans have many rule books and mess up with the details from culture to culture but even then the details don't mess up with the overarching focus on fairness! It is the basics of a functional society! This is why societies that want to function have rule books and laws...the bad ones go extinct while the best ones keep on going...same goes with politics and rulers!

Finally bare in mind that cooperation is not the most important "law" in town as competition has the first place!
Compete when you can and when you cannot compete cooperate to compete better with another group! Tribalism!

I do follow what you say yes.

As I said in one of my previous posts...if one only believes/adopts the logic good is bad and bad is good (1,0...0,1) then yes one can have balance/cancelling out/nihilism ; survival of the fittest and anything goes (life is meaningless) ;there are no rules or morals and there is no free will.One can have all that.All adopted with absolutely no definitive proof that the basis for this philosophy on life is TRUTH.

One can also consider all 4 off of the logic outputs which also produce balance/cancelling out/nihilism etc as well.All adopted with absolutely no definitive proof that the basis for this philosophy on life is TRUE either.

However,there is a mysterious output if all 4 off logic outputs are adopted because if Good is Good and Bad is Bad then what is the difference between Good and Bad?

Although the difference is not defined the logic output holds true.

There comes a point whereby one can continue with a machine like approach to reasonings/deliberations always adopting a (1,0...0,1) philosophical outlook on life or one can progress further and question the mysterious output of (1,1..1,0..0,1..0,0) logic further.

We all have either a (+ve or -ve NEUTRAL) outlook on life/death at the end of the day....all in HOPE of course.

My HOPE is that TRUTH will prevail in the end.

One cannot have nearly perfect or nearly imperfect...It is either perfect or it isn’t (0 or 1).Similarly, one cannot have nearly good or nearly bad.

The mysterious output from the 4 off logic outputs holds the key in my opinion.

Your Logic is definitely BAD and its shoeing up my nerves...

The problem you have my friend is that you need to definitively PROVE that it is BAD...All the best with that one..

With the incredibly superb philosophy being offered by Jasper and Albuquerque here...and $3...you can get a ride on a subway in New York City.

Well as we have all balanced out...we can HOPE in our philosophies as much as we want.

Logic says that there is still that mysterious difference between good and bad.

I have this instinctive belief that everything in the Universe is fundamentally right useful and seats in some niche of the ecosystem and from there it follows that I have a really hard time understanding what is the role of really really BAD thinking...it must serve a purpose in the social drama of Human existence, I am just not smart enough and willing enough to see through it.

I will give to you the effort the interest to get ahead and grasp something, you could be playing baseball instead and that is noble and has a merit of its own...but oh boy there is a load of confusion going on ad infinitum in that head of yours...

There is absolutely no confusion whatsoever going on my my head.

The logic proposed is sound and I have yet to hear a sensible/rational challenge to it.

I am pointing out that there is a mysterious output as a result of good is good and bad is bad....which logic would suggest needs to be considered as much as good is bad and bad is good.

Most of modern day philosophy is based only upon good is bad and bad is good logic.It’s this philosophy that is confused my friend.

So then, is it agreed that 0,0...1,1 logic (philosophy) carries just as much credence as 0,1...1,0 logic (philosophy)?

If not ...why not? ....bearing in mind that no DEFINITIVE carnal proof can be provided for either.