Ethics in a nutshell

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:10 pm

Viveka wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:57 pm
I would not say that man soley is in a position to speak for it. The nature of communication fundamentally lies in the nature of relation. In this respect, all creation to a degree "speaks" however the nature of this complexity varies. We see this in the animal world, but it may be argued for plants, minerals to a minor degree in several respects.

In respects to Heraclitus idea, part of it is about the nature of "Relativity". Certain "particulate" (And I used this world in a very general sense as all "beings" that relate are composed of and exist as a particulate of greater whole, so this word must not be limited in the strict sense of physics) function better within certain matrixes. The relation of the particulate to their matrix determines the nature of the particulate itself. A fish relates through salt water, this is the matrix within which it maintains its highest degree of actual and potential relations. This does not applies equivocably to humans.

The nature of Goodness, as centering, in these respects would be about the relation of the matrix to the particular particulate. The matrix through which the particulate relates is the appropriate matrix. In simpler terms, beings are extensions of their environment and environments are extensions of their beings. The ability of the one to actualize the other and not only actualize it must maintain its potentiality is the most "moral".

This goes back to Heraclitus example, one would not put a fish on land or a man in water permanently, as both relate through thier respective environments.

In regards to the "goodness in all being"...the fish, the saltwater, the human as "beings" are all good. The nature of the fish being on land, an immoderate amount of time relative to its nature, or the human drink an immoderate amount of salt water relative to his/her nature is as it is a deficiency in symmetry within relations. The fish can only be out of the water for so long, and the human can only drink so much saltwater. Although the nature of these relations between fish and air and human and saltwater are relative in respect that thier is subjective nature to it (certain fish may last longer on land, and certain people may be able to consumer more saltwater), their is still a constant element in respect to the fish cannot live on air and the human cannot live on saltwater. In is not within thier respective natures and the fact that these particulate cannot relate through these respective matrixes (upon further thought the word "quantum" could suffice for "matrix" too.) means they cannot relate at all and "cease" to be.

In these respects the nature of Human and fish, as eternal forms/structures reflect the environment they both compose and are composed of and in these respects and assymetry in reflection between these structures results in a deficiency in the structure itself, and "ceases to be".

If one where to reflect abstractly on the nature of "form", we will use the circle because it is universal, it reflects both itself and the environment around it. The circle reflects itself as circular obviously, however the space around it reflects this same form in a seperate and symmetrical respect.

From another respect the space "around" the circle reflects the circle itself. So which came first the "circle" or the "space" around the circle? The are both reflective structures. A simpler example would be the simple statement we have all heard "you do not put a square peg in a round whole". The is a constant reflective symmetry between the form and the space around the form for both to exist "fully".

In these respects morality is both subjective and objective with the nature of mediation having both subjective and objective elements. Subjective and objective morality do not clash unless when one is over emphasize above the other.

What humans must do, for their own "Goodness", (and because this answer may be too general and abstract, further questioning is warranted) is the practice of Reason, with reasoning being the practice of manifesting and observing ratios, with these ratios as a form of balancing. "Man is Steward, not master of Creation" and a steward is a "mediator".
I do not follow you on your 'matrices' and 'particulates' and 'ceasing to be.' Can you explain what you mean by these terms so I can better understand the rest of the post?
All things that flux, or "move", in themselves are not "wholes" in the respect they lack stability. Flux is a deficiency in stability. It is in these respects that all "being" which moves/fluxes is a "part" of a whole, in the respect that is must move in order to "relate". It is through relation that "parts" not only move towards a whole, which is stable, but maintain an existence for a part (or fractal of something) exists through relation.

Relation is therefore synonymous to flux/movement.

All parts must therefore relate. This nature of beings as "parts" or "fractals" of a whole I used the term "particulate" which is rooted in world "part".

It is within this nature of particulate being, that the particulate are defined through their "actual" relations and "potential relations". However relation is relation regardless of whether it is "actual" or "potential" and in these respects what we understand of "particulate being" breaks down to understanding how it "fluxes/moves". We observe the nature of a "particulate being" through the nature of its "flux/movement" as "relation".

This nature of particulate being relating to particulate being when magnified (made larger or smaller) in itself forms another "particulate being" or "quantum/matrix", through which the "particulate being" relate.

Take for example, a fish relates to a fish. This fish in turn relates to another fish. The "particulate being" as the fish must relate to other fish in order to "exist". This group of "particulate being" relating in turn forms a "quantum/matrix" as a school of fish. This "school" of fish in turn is a "particulate" in the respect that further particulate to survive. Whether this "particulate" is a "quantum/matrix" of shrimp, seaweed, etc. is what defines the nature of the "fish" as a particulate: certain particulate relate to certain particulate in a manner which actualizes their existence.

Now to get back to the example of fish/water and human/land (as extensions of the Heraclitus example).

Water and land are fundamentally observations of flux/movement. Water and land are determined by their nature of flux, and in these respects can be viewed as "quantums/matrixes" of flux. The nature of a "quantum/matrixes" ability to relate is not only what determines it's nature but also determines whether it exists or not. The quantum/matrix of fish must relate through the quantum/matrix of water, and in the same manner with humans and land.

Keep in mind that particulate and quantums are symmetrical duals. A quantum/matrix is fundamentally a group of particulate which this "grouping" determining and being determined by the nature of the space. A particulate is fundamentally a quantum/matrix of further particulate in turn.

Particulate and quantums/matrixes are observations of magnification.

It is in this respect that a particulate must relate to an appropriate particulate/quantum/matrix in order to exist. As a fractal, a particulate cannot exist without relation or "flux/movement" for these relations define it. If it relates to itself, it fundamentally "ceases" to "be" for it "ceases" to "relate".

It is this nature of "actual particulate relations" which maintain a "particulate being". However this nature of actual exists as a dual to "potential" but "actualization" is "movement/flux" and in this respects must continuing "flux/movement" in order to exist. In this respect, "actual relation" are simultaneously defined by "potential relations" as a degree of "unity". This nature of "potential relations" manifests through gradation as "actuality".





This nature of relation breaks down to a mathematical function in a seperate respect.


Take for example the fractal 1/3. 1 is the potential of 3 as an actual and 3 is the gradient version of 1. In these respects we observe "division" as a regressive form of "relation".


With ∫ = "relation", φ = "actual", ω = "potential" , and ≜ = "equal in definition to / equal in flux to"

1/3 = ω/φ = φ = ∫(ω,φ) ≜ φ

In this respect the relation of the "potential particle" and the "actual particle" is equal in definition to an actual "particle" itself.


In a separate respect 2 x 3 = 6 is equal to the the "actual relations of 2 and 3 for the potential relation as 6. (6 is the potential of 2 relative to 3.)

2 x 3 = 6 = φ x φ = ω = ∫(φ,φ)≜ ω

(Going back to the division we observe 6/3 = 2 translating ω/φ = φ = ∫(ω,φ) ≜ φ)

In this respect the relation of the "actual particle" and the "actual particle" is equal in definition to a "potential" particle.



The nature of flux, or relativity in general breaks down to the physical universe operation through a "multiplicative" and "division" function which is fundamentally an observation of flux, for the nature of "propogations" (as creation or destruction) is the manner through which "being" stabilizes itself as time/space.

Viveka
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Viveka » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:36 pm

I'm sorry but I've lost you. I don't understand what you mean by it having to be flux and particulate and quantum/matrices. Do you mean Plato's 'form' for particulate? And why do water and land have to be 'flux'? I could understand it if you put it into a fraction with 1/2pi, which would be one quantum per one cycle of flux. If that makes any sense, or relates to your intuitive mathematics.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:17 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:36 pm
I'm sorry but I've lost you. I don't understand what you mean by it having to be flux and particulate and quantum/matrices. Do you mean Plato's 'form' for particulate? And why do water and land have to be 'flux'? I could understand it if you put it into a fraction with 1/2pi, which would be one quantum per one cycle of flux. If that makes any sense, or relates to your intuitive mathematics.
All things that relate do so in order to exist. This need for relation implies a deficiency as a "whole" in some respect or manner. "Being" that must relate in order to exist is deficient in a "stable" or "full" existence.

This deficiency in "fullness" equates to that "being" to a "particulate" or "fractal" being in the respect that it is a "part of" or "fraction" of a "whole". These need to "relate", as a form of instability due to a "lack of wholeness" implies a necessary degree of movement (I will used movement instead of flux, but they are one and the same.)

Movement, is a deficiency in stability for it implies "change".

It is in these respects that particulate are defined by their "actual relations" (or actual movement, such as me typing as a relation between me and the computer). However the "actual relations" are simultaneously defined by "potential relations". The reason for this is that movement, as subject to time, exists in an actual state and "potential state". Without potential movement their can be no actual movement for there would "cease" to be flux or change.

Movement is instability, and all movement is relation.

Groups of particulate that relate in turn are a "quantum" of particulate, which in itself is a particulate. Particulate and quantums are strictly just micro and macro views of the other and are fundamentally the same.



In these respects all being with moves, must relate. The nature of the relations is actual and potential.


What we understand of water and land (along with all the other elements) are fundamentally observations of degrees of flux. Now from the "Platonic" perspectives are the constant forms (or reflective structures as an extension of a greater structure?) yes.

Observing them through the nature of relativity, however is to observe them as fluxing elements.

And I will continue in a half hour, haha , my battery is almost out on my laptop.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:04 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:36 pm
I'm sorry but I've lost you. I don't understand what you mean by it having to be flux and particulate and quantum/matrices. Do you mean Plato's 'form' for particulate? And why do water and land have to be 'flux'? I could understand it if you put it into a fraction with 1/2pi, which would be one quantum per one cycle of flux. If that makes any sense, or relates to your intuitive mathematics.
Water and land are "universals" are reflective structures of the "1" point (the Logos, God, etc.) They are "extensions" of the "1". Think of it this way,
"1" is the universal. 2 and 3 are approximate structures of 1 reflecting upon itself. They exists as universal forms through the self-reflection of 1, yet at their root they are "1" (1 reflecting 1 reflects as 2, same with 1 reflecting 1 reflecting 1 reflects as 3). In this respect as "universal structures" they are "stable" as they are extensions of "1".

This nature of "1" point, as a stable self-reflective eternal universal, manifests "flux" as an approximate point. Where "1" is stable through self-reflection, this nature of self-reflection manifesting further points as extensions of itself by default manifests a dual dimension to this "reflective stability", as "relative flux".

This is what we understand, in many degrees at matter or physicality, it is strictly a dimension of gradation from the universal "1" as flux. This nature of flux, or instability, is a dual to stability. All structures as the universal 1 point (for the nature of point is infinite points) manifests as "fractals" or "particulate" (a "part"). This nature of fractal being is in continuous movement as continous relation, for a "fractal" cannot exist on its own.

This of it this way, Plato's observation of the abstract and Aristotle's observation of the physical are both duals. Plato observed the "eternal". Aristotle observed the "temporal" (for time is matter). The elements, specifically water and land as we are observing, manifest this duality of Reflective Stability and Relational flux.

What we are observing, and maybe I am poorly explaining this, is Heraclitus's view point was strictly of Relation or Relativity. A seperate Pre-socratic (such as Parmenides, if memory serves correctly) could view everything as "1" stable being.

The problem really breaks down to a duality of "oneness" (or holism) and "many" (or atomism). What we are observing is the nature of morality from the "Relativistic/Atomist" perspective.

From a perspective of each element being half-pi what we are doing is constituting the elements as "one" new point. This may be observed as the ether in one respect. We can talk about this on a seperate thread, because I do not want to get to far from the point with this ethics thread.

In a very over-simplified summary, all being that exists within time exists through relation. This nature of relation defines the nature of the being. In this respect the nature of relation has moral connotations for morality is "a way of being" with some "ways" being "fuller" than others.

Viveka
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Viveka » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:04 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:36 pm
I'm sorry but I've lost you. I don't understand what you mean by it having to be flux and particulate and quantum/matrices. Do you mean Plato's 'form' for particulate? And why do water and land have to be 'flux'? I could understand it if you put it into a fraction with 1/2pi, which would be one quantum per one cycle of flux. If that makes any sense, or relates to your intuitive mathematics.
Water and land are "universals" are reflective structures of the "1" point (the Logos, God, etc.) They are "extensions" of the "1". Think of it this way,
"1" is the universal. 2 and 3 are approximate structures of 1 reflecting upon itself. They exists as universal forms through the self-reflection of 1, yet at their root they are "1" (1 reflecting 1 reflects as 2, same with 1 reflecting 1 reflecting 1 reflects as 3). In this respect as "universal structures" they are "stable" as they are extensions of "1".

This nature of "1" point, as a stable self-reflective eternal universal, manifests "flux" as an approximate point. Where "1" is stable through self-reflection, this nature of self-reflection manifesting further points as extensions of itself by default manifests a dual dimension to this "reflective stability", as "relative flux".

This is what we understand, in many degrees at matter or physicality, it is strictly a dimension of gradation from the universal "1" as flux. This nature of flux, or instability, is a dual to stability. All structures as the universal 1 point (for the nature of point is infinite points) manifests as "fractals" or "particulate" (a "part"). This nature of fractal being is in continuous movement as continous relation, for a "fractal" cannot exist on its own.

This of it this way, Plato's observation of the abstract and Aristotle's observation of the physical are both duals. Plato observed the "eternal". Aristotle observed the "temporal" (for time is matter). The elements, specifically water and land as we are observing, manifest this duality of Reflective Stability and Relational flux.

What we are observing, and maybe I am poorly explaining this, is Heraclitus's view point was strictly of Relation or Relativity. A seperate Pre-socratic (such as Parmenides, if memory serves correctly) could view everything as "1" stable being.

The problem really breaks down to a duality of "oneness" (or holism) and "many" (or atomism). What we are observing is the nature of morality from the "Relativistic/Atomist" perspective.

From a perspective of each element being half-pi what we are doing is constituting the elements as "one" new point. This may be observed as the ether in one respect. We can talk about this on a seperate thread, because I do not want to get to far from the point with this ethics thread.

In a very over-simplified summary, all being that exists within time exists through relation. This nature of relation defines the nature of the being. In this respect the nature of relation has moral connotations for morality is "a way of being" with some "ways" being "fuller" than others.
i hate to say it again, but I have no clue of what you mean by all of this.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:30 pm

Viveka wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:15 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:04 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:36 pm
I'm sorry but I've lost you. I don't understand what you mean by it having to be flux and particulate and quantum/matrices. Do you mean Plato's 'form' for particulate? And why do water and land have to be 'flux'? I could understand it if you put it into a fraction with 1/2pi, which would be one quantum per one cycle of flux. If that makes any sense, or relates to your intuitive mathematics.
Water and land are "universals" are reflective structures of the "1" point (the Logos, God, etc.) They are "extensions" of the "1". Think of it this way,
"1" is the universal. 2 and 3 are approximate structures of 1 reflecting upon itself. They exists as universal forms through the self-reflection of 1, yet at their root they are "1" (1 reflecting 1 reflects as 2, same with 1 reflecting 1 reflecting 1 reflects as 3). In this respect as "universal structures" they are "stable" as they are extensions of "1".

This nature of "1" point, as a stable self-reflective eternal universal, manifests "flux" as an approximate point. Where "1" is stable through self-reflection, this nature of self-reflection manifesting further points as extensions of itself by default manifests a dual dimension to this "reflective stability", as "relative flux".

This is what we understand, in many degrees at matter or physicality, it is strictly a dimension of gradation from the universal "1" as flux. This nature of flux, or instability, is a dual to stability. All structures as the universal 1 point (for the nature of point is infinite points) manifests as "fractals" or "particulate" (a "part"). This nature of fractal being is in continuous movement as continous relation, for a "fractal" cannot exist on its own.

This of it this way, Plato's observation of the abstract and Aristotle's observation of the physical are both duals. Plato observed the "eternal". Aristotle observed the "temporal" (for time is matter). The elements, specifically water and land as we are observing, manifest this duality of Reflective Stability and Relational flux.

What we are observing, and maybe I am poorly explaining this, is Heraclitus's view point was strictly of Relation or Relativity. A seperate Pre-socratic (such as Parmenides, if memory serves correctly) could view everything as "1" stable being.

The problem really breaks down to a duality of "oneness" (or holism) and "many" (or atomism). What we are observing is the nature of morality from the "Relativistic/Atomist" perspective.

From a perspective of each element being half-pi what we are doing is constituting the elements as "one" new point. This may be observed as the ether in one respect. We can talk about this on a seperate thread, because I do not want to get to far from the point with this ethics thread.

In a very over-simplified summary, all being that exists within time exists through relation. This nature of relation defines the nature of the being. In this respect the nature of relation has moral connotations for morality is "a way of being" with some "ways" being "fuller" than others.
i hate to say it again, but I have no clue of what you mean by all of this.

Relation and Flux are synonymous. All flux is instability. All instability implies a "non-whole" or "non-unified" nature (in one degree or another).

That which needs to relate, in order to exist, is deficient in stability or unity and therefore cannot be considered a whole.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests