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
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by The Voice of Time » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:48 am

prof wrote: So, dear readers, if after you have done your homework you have any questions, or good ideas for upgrading, or a substitute ethical theory that you regard as superior, let us hear about it !!!! :!:
I have one ethical theory, but I'd be insulted to call it a substitution, it is one I've mentioned before.

The world is not a shopping list where you categorize your shopping items by their nature of being "systemic", "extrinsic" or "intrinsic". The first lesson in my "ethical theory" (opusology, which I call it, is not really ethics the old fashioned way, though it does produce results on where there's the most to gain) is that all the world is inherently zero-value, it's all the same. Then you introduce "time", and the universe becomes in conflict with itself, it starts changing, it starts assembling itself into a "whole", this whole is the metaphorical "image of the end-times". On its way to the end-times, time will shift about its interior, introducing new parts laying them atop of the old ones, but, because time consists of "before's" and "after's" it comes with an order, one which we represent by a line of proceeding dots, each dot representing a single change to the vast self-fulfilling puzzle of the universe.

These dots contains patterns, one pattern being the purest of all patterns: tendency. Tendency decides the rise and fall of all existences in our world, and from tendency we get causality powers; the powers that makes something become something, a power which really is just a memory of the "conditions" for when something exists in the world and when it doesn't. Because things comes back and disappears again, we call it "Lasting", instead of just "Being" or "Existing".

Now the human being has a interesting automation, far from unique, but still interesting, and that is the automation-to-completion. The human being will in its mind and its body be affected by the world and from itself and it will absorb the world, but in so doing adapting to it as well, and the result of this adaptation is a dependency relationship the human being always strives to balance, to make complete.

As the universe works its tendencies, another pattern emerges: the tendency for preference, for favourization, for choosing. The universe, in a sense, chooses what to do before anything else, and from this pattern another new pattern emerges: whenever something is supported by causality powers, by elements of conditionality, it "Lasts" in time, which is not the same saying it lasts any particular length, it is just a way of saying that it is stretching across a, or several particular lengths of time.

From this a graph can be created representing the Object of Lasting at a centre, with circles levelling outwards from it, each outer circle containing the inner circle within it. At the innermost circle a set of the constituent particles of the whole (the Object of Lasting) is drawn in blocks, each block Image contains sets of conditions for that particle to exist, to last, and in turn by lasting ensuring the completion of the Object of Lasting, that the Object itself lasts. The outer blocks contains the conditions of the conditions, and so on ad infinitum.

One such graph is called a Graph of Needs, because it displays shortages, because, one "block" only essentially requires one set to be present and which is itself supported by any outer set etc., but it would be a rather fragile Object of Lasting if a single change in the Graph would destroy it, or at least make it no longer itself. So a Graph of Needs tracks the number of "surplus" conditions and the "Need" is where the structure is the most critical. Changes to a Graph is tracked in real-world events, by what changes in the real world.

Several of these Graphs can be networked to each other to create both "variations", as over time most except only the most abstract things changes at least some and because of this one can vary between graphs, and, alternatively, to create a Map of Abilities, in each case all other Graphs except the one which is in time at the moment is an Ability-jump, and the map itself a kind of Ability Graph, it tells what are the alternatives for moving in Need-Space and the result of any such movement.

By mapping the world and time in Need-Space you acquire a deep understanding of your own place in the universe which is subject to the will of the universe, and you will travel in Need-Space as a companion of the universes' own destiny.

But where does value start? Value is like a chain, but like constellations on the star-map the lines are not there, you have to draw them yourself, and with value you may find that the Chain of Value can jump across space and therefore is not always subject to normal space travel which is one coordinate at a time. Value starts with the "automation-to-completion"! The automation starts when something seeks to grow. Now, it is fully possible to grow a logical set by cheating, and therefore there's a rule to automation-to-completion, and that is that any logical set which increases its size of elements is only valid if it does so under a System of Operative Rules, in other words, a filter to find the real changes to our concepts, those changes that we find belong strictly to the logical set and are not "garbage elements", things that travel along but does not have a real-world relationship with the elements of any significance.

Which filter, which "system of operative rules" is correct? Well, for one, you do not include changes to a person's philosophical beliefs when you study the human body, that could be interpreted as "garbage elements", changes that when included does not really belong with biological and physiological data. Any system of inquiry, like a science, must have strict rules for operating with other sciences, least you'll interpret data from two widely different conceptions in a similar fashion, yielding unintelligible results. For instance, what is metabolism of a social group? That makes no sense, of course you could rewrite it as a "group of human bodies", but a social group is not that, it is a completely different plane of inquiry with a completely different mindset, incompatible. Beyond that, any system will have to prove its efficiency as a tendency of the universe will have to prove its reliability.

A Chain of Value starts with its core, and its core is from where it extends, but the Chain of Value is not constant. Over time a Lasting itself, like an effect spreading across matter, extends from the core, "conquering" the world about it, making it part of the Object of Lasting and extending the object's stretch. This "conquest" is what being part of the universe is all about, because being part of the universe is about fulfilling the destiny of the universe itself, which is the image of end-time as a complete eternal and infinitely stretching domain of Lasting.

But when we human "conquer" the world into Lasting, we really are more "changing" it, like in manufacture or craft (as an anthropocentric example), we take the world and we bend it to be a supporting structure for the mountain of conditions supporting our domain of Lasting.

An important point is that to gain accuracy, atomization of all graphs is essential.

So you see, THIS is value, value is adding conditionality, and ETHICS is about "conquering" the world from within your core self, building a structure of lasting, it's about getting accurate, finding where exactly does my core's lay? And find out which is the next target to be made part of the domain of Lasting. This is not to say that any time the universes' destiny goes before your own, that is essentially not even a relevant thought, because all you do is work from your innermost point of view, and that is itself a blessing to the universe. It is really equating ethics with a maximized gain tactic, but with first finding what the targets are.

Each core, or automation-to-completion, as it interacts with the world, it creates Cultural Pipelines, which is to say each core has its own culture it projects (in a non-anthropocentric sense) and it applies unto the world that culture making the world friendly to itself, the "pipeline" meaning that it constructs metaphorically a pipeline around the flows of changes in the world, controlling not so much in detail as in direction, but the more pipelines the more it can filter and direct to smaller places. Natural Pipelines are situations that by nature are preferable and require none or little of cultivation.

A way of finding the targets more directly, is to look on the world stretching from you and find what parts of the world are, by a system of operative rules, waning or ceasing to exist, or same with growth, look at what grows by a system of operative rules, and figure out how to affect both situations so as to reinforce your structure of lasting.
prof wrote:{I examined, and studied, the 'Ethics as Central Processing' concept, and I have good reason to believe it will - once it is put into effect, and its ongoing work is done - arrive at the same principles and conclusions as the theory described in the papers and essays downloadable via the links at the end of the first post above.}
It was a random thought, not a refined idea, though it is inspired by a system of frameworking I created another place.

prof
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by prof » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:50 am

Okay, folks

Here at the Ethical Theory Forum you now have two theories to choose from. Go with the ethical theory that you find is better.



:idea: If you could use some guidance as to how to select a superior option, see pp. 39-42 of ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf
where a section entitled "WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD A THEORY FULFILL?" is provided. It gives a list of points to look for when deciding on a system of ethics. The system Dr. Katz proposes may not fulfill all of them yet, but you decide which of the theories of which you are aware comes closer. Also, you may wish to offer us here a set of criteria for evaluating a model for Ethics (as a classroom study course) which you believe are more fitting.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by The Voice of Time » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:34 pm

ah, I forgot to mention on thing there. Lasting is merely the absence of change, and when taken to nature and atomized it differs from how we use "lasting" in an ordinary sense, talking about things more in the abstract.

prof
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by prof » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:37 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:ah, I forgot to mention on thing there. ...
Thank you for remembering it.

prof
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by prof » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:16 pm

Let's review what we have learned....

According to the latest research in the theory of needs – we all crave recognition; it is one of the basic needs. If kids can’t get attention by being good, they often get it by being a little mischievous.

[This may account for most of what are often called "the bad guys...", i.e., the murderers, rapists, slavers, con-artists, deviants, critics, and other nuisances.] :wink:

The ethical perspective sees each individual as uncountably precious, or to state it more exactly, as of indefinitely-high value. All else in ethics follows from that! If you reflect upon it you will realize that this is so.

It is not enough to merely THINK about How can I add value to each situation in which I find myself? -- one needs to actually DO IT. And form a habit of doing it.

It is not enough to have an environment of mutual respect and cooperation in the group (be it a family, an association, a nonprofit, an organization, a business). We also want to get something done !! {The Intrinsic value is to be supplemented by some Extrinsic Value !!}

In order to get something worthwhile done, to reach a goal we have in mind -- such as, e.g., to make some income = a Systemic value which leads to Extrinsic results, such as some material value for us -- we need to be aware of the properties necessary to fulfill that goal. Then supply them. What we seek eventually, if we are ethical, is EFFECTIVENESS.

Effectiveness means motivated to enhance the well-being of all the world's people. And knowing, that as you work on this, there is a benefit in it for yourself.

So go to it :!:

Be effective.

Impenitent
Posts: 1702
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Impenitent » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:01 pm

be effective - it's double plus good!

-Imp

prof
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by prof » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:43 pm

I see that imp, at least, was paying attention. :D


Look, I'm no Puritan. I am not demanding virtue of you. I am opposed to prohibitions. I want no government interference in the choices you make for your life. If you want to kill yourself or be miserable, that is your free choice.

If anyone wants to run himself down, or ruin his health, that's up to him. I can't stop him. I an not a moralist.

prof
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by prof » Fri May 10, 2013 6:54 am

The Voice of Time wrote:
prof wrote:
A member of the class of application is a "referent,." or case, or example.

Questions?
What is a "member of the class of application"? Classes and application doesn't make sense put together least you are talking about computer programming and reword it to "in an application", and why "the class" and not "a class"? What is "class of application"?
Take the examples of a concept together; they form a set. That set or class is "the class of application of the concept." It is all the things the concept applies to. If the concept, for example, is "human being" then the 'class of application' consists of all the human individuals that are now, that ever will be, and that have ever been.

If the concept is "unicorn" then the class of application is the null-class. It has no members.

If the concept is "five" then the intension (its meaning) and the extension (its application) may be numerically identical. {Bertrand Russell defined it - in his analysis of what a number is - as a class OF classes....}

Logic employs the idea of class-membership frequently. The Greek symbol epsilon is used to symbolize the relationship. A referent, or instance - say, an actual ball - is a member of the class of balls. "Ball" is the concept. This ball is member of that class of all balls. It - this particular ball - is a referent or an example; it is a member of the class-concept applied to the real world. So, it is in the "class of application."

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Viveka » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:40 pm

prof wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:16 pm
Let's review what we have learned....

According to the latest research in the theory of needs – we all crave recognition; it is one of the basic needs. If kids can’t get attention by being good, they often get it by being a little mischievous.

[This may account for most of what are often called "the bad guys...", i.e., the murderers, rapists, slavers, con-artists, deviants, critics, and other nuisances.] :wink:

The ethical perspective sees each individual as uncountably precious, or to state it more exactly, as of indefinitely-high value. All else in ethics follows from that! If you reflect upon it you will realize that this is so.

It is not enough to merely THINK about How can I add value to each situation in which I find myself? -- one needs to actually DO IT. And form a habit of doing it.

It is not enough to have an environment of mutual respect and cooperation in the group (be it a family, an association, a nonprofit, an organization, a business). We also want to get something done !! {The Intrinsic value is to be supplemented by some Extrinsic Value !!}

In order to get something worthwhile done, to reach a goal we have in mind -- such as, e.g., to make some income = a Systemic value which leads to Extrinsic results, such as some material value for us -- we need to be aware of the properties necessary to fulfill that goal. Then supply them. What we seek eventually, if we are ethical, is EFFECTIVENESS.

Effectiveness means motivated to enhance the well-being of all the world's people. And knowing, that as you work on this, there is a benefit in it for yourself.

So go to it :!:

Be effective.
I agree that individuals are of indefinite value, but I wouldn't characterize ethics as a system of indefinite value such as C the continuum, because all of it is equal to itself. In other words defining 'the Good' as this continuum may help, but it doesn't do anything to truly define it. And, without an objective 'good' or 'bad' we would find ourselves equally valuing one moral system with another if it is all in your 'I' category. In other words, if it is measurelessly good for goodness to exist, then all forms of 'goodness' defined by your 'value-system' are really just concepts that tell us what people value in time and not outside of change. Your hartman value profile is simply a method of common valuation based upon common, civil, and average ways of thinking. For instance, the value of a trash pile may be great to a homeless person, and burning a heretic at the stake would have definitely been valued by witch hunters and believers in witches. Thus, while it may appear 'objective' since most people average out, it would require a much longer list and a much more objective valuation in that we determine what all of humanity throughout all of time 'value' for their lives and other's lives. I could love my familiy more than a stranger's family, but according to your 'I" valuation, I should value all people limitlessly. This is certainly noble and good but it isn't true. Please define to me what Goodness is exactly.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1126
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:26 pm

The nature of "Good" fundamnentally lies within the nature of "being" itself, for "good" is "being". Bad in a seperate respect, is a deficiency and not a "thing" in itself. It is in this respect that "bad" is a deficiency in being.

With "good" being synonymous with being, the nature of all moral codes as conducts of "goodness" are fundamentally ways to "be". If we look at the nature of "being" it by approximate is "structure" and "order", so what we understand of "being" is synonymous to "structure" and "order".

From this understanding of "being" as "structure" and "order" we may further infer, through the observation as to the nature of order, that all existence manifests itself through "proportions", "ratios", "symmetry", etc. The nature of being is found in order and symmetry and through the nature of "symmetry" we find the necessity of mediation between polarities or duals.

We understand the nature of symmetry in the human body as dualities (2 eyes, 2 arms, etc.) however this nature of duality (or polarities) is non stabilized unless a third medial element is involved (torso as the median between the arms, abstract sight through the brain [or pineal gland from the ancient perspective/third eye], etc.

This is further reflected in the nature of virtuous conduct as evidenced within the Nichomachean Ethics, the Golden Mean, Buddhist "Middle Way", etc.

It is in this respects that all ethics is fundamentally the observation of a trifold system, with the "mean" or "center" being the ideal behavior for "being". This makes further sense when one look's at the nature of "being" as a spatial element, for within the nature of space the dot/circle/sphere are the truest of all symmetrical structures from which all other structures stem from.

From a synthesis of these brief examples and a geometry, the nature of ethics revolves around a nature of "centering" and "mediation" which can be extending further into a unifying concept. We can observe this in respect to the nature of "mediation" itself being not only a unifying properties between concepts, people, etc, but also a synthesizing one in the respect that it "creates a new structure." In this respect, all ethics by default, through the nature of "centering" or "balancing" are simultaneously life promoting and life maintaining.

The danger of a strict "value" based approach to ethics only is that it is assymetrical in regards to the formation of the axioms which govern everyday life. If one where to come from a strict subject only approach, without any objective reflection from a stable moral system (the golden mean, etc.) then one risks falling under relativism and by default being in a constant state of moral flux (which in turn results in a flux in being, leading to instability and eventual destruction.)

Ethics by default must not only maintain a dual objective component, but cannot be strictly subjective without contradicting itself as making an objective code. It is in this nature of a subjective/objective dualism that a composite third point appears as the "axiom" (or "self-evidence", the very means through which humanity manifests itself and the world around it) which causes further mediation and stability to the structure of ethics for "axioms" are the "axels" of "being".

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Viveka » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:26 pm
The nature of "Good" fundamnentally lies within the nature of "being" itself, for "good" is "being". Bad in a seperate respect, is a deficiency and not a "thing" in itself. It is in this respect that "bad" is a deficiency in being.

With "good" being synonymous with being, the nature of all moral codes as conducts of "goodness" are fundamentally ways to "be". If we look at the nature of "being" it by approximate is "structure" and "order", so what we understand of "being" is synonymous to "structure" and "order".

From this understanding of "being" as "structure" and "order" we may further infer, through the observation as to the nature of order, that all existence manifests itself through "proportions", "ratios", "symmetry", etc. The nature of being is found in order and symmetry and through the nature of "symmetry" we find the necessity of mediation between polarities or duals.

We understand the nature of symmetry in the human body as dualities (2 eyes, 2 arms, etc.) however this nature of duality (or polarities) is non stabilized unless a third medial element is involved (torso as the median between the arms, abstract sight through the brain [or pineal gland from the ancient perspective/third eye], etc.

This is further reflected in the nature of virtuous conduct as evidenced within the Nichomachean Ethics, the Golden Mean, Buddhist "Middle Way", etc.

It is in this respects that all ethics is fundamentally the observation of a trifold system, with the "mean" or "center" being the ideal behavior for "being". This makes further sense when one look's at the nature of "being" as a spatial element, for within the nature of space the dot/circle/sphere are the truest of all symmetrical structures from which all other structures stem from.

From a synthesis of these brief examples and a geometry, the nature of ethics revolves around a nature of "centering" and "mediation" which can be extending further into a unifying concept. We can observe this in respect to the nature of "mediation" itself being not only a unifying properties between concepts, people, etc, but also a synthesizing one in the respect that it "creates a new structure." In this respect, all ethics by default, through the nature of "centering" or "balancing" are simultaneously life promoting and life maintaining.

The danger of a strict "value" based approach to ethics only is that it is assymetrical in regards to the formation of the axioms which govern everyday life. If one where to come from a strict subject only approach, without any objective reflection from a stable moral system (the golden mean, etc.) then one risks falling under relativism and by default being in a constant state of moral flux (which in turn results in a flux in being, leading to instability and eventual destruction.)

Ethics by default must not only maintain a dual objective component, but cannot be strictly subjective without contradicting itself as making an objective code. It is in this nature of a subjective/objective dualism that a composite third point appears as the "axiom" (or "self-evidence", the very means through which humanity manifests itself and the world around it) which causes further mediation and stability to the structure of ethics for "axioms" are the "axels" of "being".
Wow! Incredible post! I agree almost completely. Here is what I do not agree with:
  • Goodness is 'being.' I think that being can be goodness, but not goodness being, otherwise everything would be good regardless of its true moral status. I've flirted with the idea that everything is good in its own manner, but it would ruin the Anthropic idea of an ultimate good that is self-evident for humanity itself.
  • There must always be a third. I think duality is also necessary for it compehends itself in its nature by pulling itself up by its own bootstraps just as three must as well. This is the essence of self-knowledge which I believe is upon death we have a life-review, or, if you will, reading from the book of life, which ultimately leads one to God, the ultimate Monad.
  • Your idea of 'structure' is very close to the 'Logos' of the Greeks. I would say that universals of essence are necessary for defining moral systems, yes. But to do so with 'structure' would result in a sort of lacking concreteness as you said mathematically and physically they apply.' Also, mathematics, if not given quality through Pythagorean or other systems of thought cannot be applied to ethics except broadly in broader strokes of 'well the golden rule is similar to this mathematical proportion or physical symmetry when appreciated intuitively.' I have written about a mathematical representation that is intuitively appreciated as between time, monads, and free-will, but that's for other times and places and people.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1126
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:25 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:53 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:26 pm
The nature of "Good" fundamentally lies within the nature of "being" itself, for "good" is "being". Bad in a separate respect, is a deficiency and not a "thing" in itself. It is in this respect that "bad" is a deficiency in being.

With "good" being synonymous with being, the nature of all moral codes as conducts of "goodness" are fundamentally ways to "be". If we look at the nature of "being" it by approximate is "structure" and "order", so what we understand of "being" is synonymous to "structure" and "order".

From this understanding of "being" as "structure" and "order" we may further infer, through the observation as to the nature of order, that all existence manifests itself through "proportions", "ratios", "symmetry", etc. The nature of being is found in order and symmetry and through the nature of "symmetry" we find the necessity of mediation between polarities or duals.

We understand the nature of symmetry in the human body as dualities (2 eyes, 2 arms, etc.) however this nature of duality (or polarities) is non stabilized unless a third medial element is involved (torso as the median between the arms, abstract sight through the brain [or pineal gland from the ancient perspective/third eye], etc.

This is further reflected in the nature of virtuous conduct as evidenced within the Nichomachean Ethics, the Golden Mean, Buddhist "Middle Way", etc.

It is in this respects that all ethics is fundamentally the observation of a trifold system, with the "mean" or "center" being the ideal behavior for "being". This makes further sense when one look's at the nature of "being" as a spatial element, for within the nature of space the dot/circle/sphere are the truest of all symmetrical structures from which all other structures stem from.

From a synthesis of these brief examples and a geometry, the nature of ethics revolves around a nature of "centering" and "mediation" which can be extending further into a unifying concept. We can observe this in respect to the nature of "mediation" itself being not only a unifying properties between concepts, people, etc, but also a synthesizing one in the respect that it "creates a new structure." In this respect, all ethics by default, through the nature of "centering" or "balancing" are simultaneously life promoting and life maintaining.

The danger of a strict "value" based approach to ethics only is that it is assymetrical in regards to the formation of the axioms which govern everyday life. If one where to come from a strict subject only approach, without any objective reflection from a stable moral system (the golden mean, etc.) then one risks falling under relativism and by default being in a constant state of moral flux (which in turn results in a flux in being, leading to instability and eventual destruction.)

Ethics by default must not only maintain a dual objective component, but cannot be strictly subjective without contradicting itself as making an objective code. It is in this nature of a subjective/objective dualism that a composite third point appears as the "axiom" (or "self-evidence", the very means through which humanity manifests itself and the world around it) which causes further mediation and stability to the structure of ethics for "axioms" are the "axels" of "being".
Wow! Incredible post! I agree almost completely. Here is what I do not agree with:
  • Goodness is 'being.' I think that being can be goodness, but not goodness being, otherwise everything would be good regardless of its true moral status. I've flirted with the idea that everything is good in its own manner, but it would ruin the Anthropic idea of an ultimate good that is self-evident for humanity itself.

    What we understand of Goodness as Being, is goodness as "fullness" of being for the nature of "being" itself is subject to grades. From a practical perspective, when we observe or label a person or thing as "bad" or "evil" what we are observing is strictly a deficiency in their nature of being. Take for example a man who committed a murder. We, within the English language refer to him as an "evil man" which translates in many respects to a man who is deficient (generally in the application of reasoning or the manifestation of ratios as a form of harmony and justice). Within the nature of English the modality determines the nature of the noun. So from the perspective of certain philosophies we understand "good" and "evil" as "things" within themselves that determine being, in this example "man".

    Other languages, and the first and primary example that comes to mind is Hebrew, would say "man evil". The noun determines the modality instead of the other way around. In this respect from this certain perspective philosophy (for languages are philosophies/perspective through which we observe the world) we understand "good" and "evil" as not things in themselves but rather "grades" of being which in turn are determined by being, in this example "man".

    The observation of the linear characteristics of language determine the emphasis on what we deem as the nature of "being" and "grades of being". It is in these respects, from a universal language, what we understand of "being" and "good" manifest at the same time in different respects as "modalities" and "universals".

    Although we share the same perspective, I disagree about it ruining the "Anthropic idea of an ultimate good that is self-evident for humanity itself" (unless I misunderstand what you are stating). Deficiency is strictly a limit, not a "thing" in itself. Take for example the reflection of 3 causal points. These three causal points, as points, are the fullness of geometric being. The reflection of these points maintains the structure as a triangle and in these respect all these points are simultaneous effects to the preceding causal point. Each point is fundamentally a cause/effect for the other point. However, what we understand of "effect" is fundamentally an approximation of cause, and in this respect each point as a cause maintains a dual element of "approximate cause" (as effect). This nature of effect, as approximation, maintains a deficiency in original cause.

    Take for example, from the Pythagorean perspective (because I believe all true Philosophy is rooted with him as foundation), the nature of the monade reflecting upon itself. 1 reflects upon one which in turn is congruent in structure to 2. This nature of 2 is an approximate of one. It is composed of one however it is not equal to one. It is from this nature of approximation that 2 is deficient in the unity of 1.

    This leads me back to the 3 points example. The nature of the point as a universal structure, whose deficiency (or limit) is found in the approximate nature of effect results in a deficient structure. A point reflecting another point (as a cause/effect reflection) results in the line. The line in this respect, is a limit to the reflective stability of the structure through the nature of approximation. In these respects as a deficiency it is equivalent to randomness for randomness is strictly a deficiency in order through approximation.

    So what we understand of all stable being is duality of cause/effect and randomness whose trifold nature is founded as "Reflection". This nature of reflection leads me back to the point about ethics, and the nature of "Goodness". What we observe as "evil", "bad", or "random" is strictly an observation of subtraction or division (as evidence further through the nature of the line) within being that inherently reflects back towards the cause or "original" being/cause which is full in nature.

    All randomness reflects order and goodness for randomness is striclty an approximation of "being" and not a thing in itself. I can go further or elaborate further on any of these points if you wish. Part of the reason I am here is strictly to find a median between what I understand and what other people understand.

  • There must always be a third. I think duality is also necessary for it compehends itself in its nature by pulling itself up by its own bootstraps just as three must as well. This is the essence of self-knowledge which I believe is upon death we have a life-review, or, if you will, reading from the book of life, which ultimately leads one to God, the ultimate Monad.

    Well let's look at the nature of duality from a geometric perspective, it is strictly a polarity between points whose polarity results in a constant flux. Duality, as a simultaneous act of multiplication and division of the Monad, in itself is not stable due to a lack of "mediation". The Triadic third element, as a synthesis of the duad into a third point allows for a stability and flux through mediation. An "unmoved mover" so to speak. This is an interesting concept, because if I remember correctly, the Pythagoreans debated over which number was actually "first"....1? or 3? I would argue they are both one and the same and in themselves are a duality whose medial point is 2 (this results again in the triadic structure of 1,2,3). We observe this in the fact that All non-fractal numbers are composed of 1,2 and/or 3.

    When we extend this perspective even further into the field of "space" we understand all reality to be composed of 3 spatial dimensions:

    The Monad, or 1 as cause, reflecting upon the Monad to maintain itself shows the unifying dimension of space as Reflective which is synonymous as Abstraction.

    This nature of Monad, reflecting upon itself, creates the Duad (as an approximation and biproduct Reflection) which in itself is a flux through Polarity. This dimension of space, as flux, is synonymous as Relativity for it is the relation of actual and potential points through flux. From this dimension of "Relative" space we get "time" and "physicality" or "material".


    Now Space as Reflective and Relative is composed of a duad in itself with Relativity being an Approximation of Reflection and Reflection being a Relation of Relativity. This duad of Reflective (or unmovable force) and Relation (or unstoppable force) synthesizes as a third element of Space which is the composite. This nature of Composite Space, or synthesis is the third symmetrical space which forms both itself and the other 2 spaces and is formed by them. Compositism is strictly the manifestation of Dimensional "Limit" (from which all order is founded and ends) and Possible Natures (further dimensional limits).

    In regards to the "life after death" I share the same views, but also believe part of this life is the understanding of the choices we have already made. It is in this understanding of "what already exists" (because from the Monad all past, present, future are One) that we simultaneously actualize it. This divine spark of "reasoning" is what makes Humanity children of the Monad, and by proxy extensions of the Monad itself. Our being is formed through the axioms we synthesize for these axioms not only form us and the world around us, but are worlds in and of themselves. So if could be said, in one respect their is no morality, and in a seperate respect everything has a morality. Think about this when observing the nature of the point, circle, and sphere. Everything reflects back to us for reflection is the fullness most stable form of being.
  • Your idea of 'structure' is very close to the 'Logos' of the Greeks. I would say that universals of essence are necessary for defining moral systems, yes. But to do so with 'structure' would result in a sort of lacking concreteness as you said mathematically and physically they apply.'

    The nature of concreteness, you might have to elaborate further on because I do not understand fully what you mean. With that in mind, the Physical as a Reflection of the Eternal/Abstract gives concrete moral laws through the nature of "relation". If x relates to y in z manner than existence or destruction results. This nature of existence as the manifestation of order through balance with man and himself/herself, man and neighbor, man and nature can be found in all moral codes in some degree or another. Murder, stealing, Adultery, etc. are defined as common evils within many cultures and even if they appear permissable within certain cultures they are still outlawed at certain levels. All of these are deficiencies in balance and structure, nothing more.

    Also, mathematics, if not given quality through Pythagorean or other systems of thought cannot be applied to ethics except broadly in broader strokes of 'well the golden rule is similar to this mathematical proportion or physical symmetry when appreciated intuitively.'

    Yes, you are absolutely correct on this. That is part of the reason I am here to be quite frank. I am working on foundation for Philosophy to simultaneously Resurrect and Synthesize these standards through expansion. It is the Geometric Dimensionalism page, and I would appreciate any form of comment you can give.

    All reality breaks down to an understanding of space whether this be "consciousness" itself or the nature of number. It is in this understanding of everything as a spatial construct, that the nature of people, groups, idealogies, become strictly points that exist through Reflection, Relation, and Synthesis. It is through the nature of these spaces, that "being" is observed by the propagation and maintenance of unity through structure. We understand that certain acts cause disharmony other promote harmony. We understand that an emphasis on feelings or desire over reason results in instability....and vice versa.

    Most moral systems are founded upon specific axioms, in regards to modern civilization, it is consumption and materialism. This inevitabley results in an instability as the nature of consumption and materialism are fundamentally founded in "flux". This flux eventually propogates itself from an emphasis on something simple like the pursuit of material comfort to all out war because the roots of these systems are founded on "desire" which in itself is a deficiency. Any emphasis on deficiency inevitable results in deficiency as a regressive circularity.

    As Plato observe, war (or more specifically desire), will always be around and in these respects a respective dual of morality "stability" must also exist by relation. In these respects, and this applies specifically to today's times, we will observe a greater "polarity" between these forces which will inevitably result in a new world.

    To get back to the point you brought up about broadness, you are both right and wrong at the same time in different respects. The point you made is correct on its own terms. The way you stated it I agree with. Where I disagree with it, is in the respect that all moral systems are inherently broad. Take for example the 10 commandments of the Three Abrahamic Religions. Upon further examination, under the nature of observed modal conditions, alot of questions can be applied and these commandments may appear in and of themselves to be "too broad" even though 10 is more specific than 1 as the "golden mean". These 10 are fundamentally 10 dimensions of this 1 universal ethical code though. Even from a Pythagorean perspective 10 was the perfect number in respect that it not only recycled back to 1 (1+0=1) but was the foundation for new number systems (11, 12, 13).

    From a seperate respect, these laws are fundamentally limits with a limit as not a thing in itself but a gradation of being. In these respects the broadness of being will simultaneously make these limits become "broad".

    In another respect the more precise one observes x the more approximate they observe y. It is in these respects the nature of observation maintains a dual element so "clarity" can only be observation through the extension of a median point.



    I have written about a mathematical representation that is intuitively appreciated as between time, monads, and free-will, but that's for other times and places and people.

    I would be interested in reading it, PM me or post the link. I know beside Pythagoras, Leibenz (if I spelled the name right) did extensive work on it. The danger I find with an emphasis on the Monad, even though it is unavoidable, is in the wrong hands unity as "1" somehow turns to a unity as "I" instead. I believe this "alchemy" of "1" to "I" resulted in the poor axiomatic foundation modern Philosophy has to deal with today.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Viveka » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:44 pm

What we understand of Goodness as Being, is goodness as "fullness" of being for the nature of "being" itself is subject to grades. From a practical perspective, when we observe or label a person or thing as "bad" or "evil" what we are observing is strictly a deficiency in their nature of being. Take for example a man who committed a murder. We, within the English language refer to him as an "evil man" which translates in many respects to a man who is deficient (generally in the application of reasoning or the manifestation of ratios as a form of harmony and justice). Within the nature of English the modality determines the nature of the noun. So from the perspective of certain philosophies we understand "good" and "evil" as "things" within themselves that determine being, in this example "man".

Other languages, and the first and primary example that comes to mind is Hebrew, would say "man evil". The noun determines the modality instead of the other way around. In this respect from this certain perspective philosophy (for languages are philosophies/perspective through which we observe the world) we understand "good" and "evil" as not things in themselves but rather "grades" of being which in turn are determined by being, in this example "man".

The observation of the linear characteristics of language determine the emphasis on what we deem as the nature of "being" and "grades of being". It is in these respects, from a universal language, what we understand of "being" and "good" manifest at the same time in different respects as "modalities" and "universals".

Although we share the same perspective, I disagree about it ruining the "Anthropic idea of an ultimate good that is self-evident for humanity itself" (unless I misunderstand what you are stating). Deficiency is strictly a limit, not a "thing" in itself. Take for example the reflection of 3 causal points. These three causal points, as points, are the fullness of geometric being. The reflection of these points maintains the structure as a triangle and in these respect all these points are simultaneous effects to the preceding causal point. Each point is fundamentally a cause/effect for the other point. However, what we understand of "effect" is fundamentally an approximation of cause, and in this respect each point as a cause maintains a dual element of "approximate cause" (as effect). This nature of effect, as approximation, maintains a deficiency in original cause.

Take for example, from the Pythagorean perspective (because I believe all true Philosophy is rooted with him as foundation), the nature of the monade reflecting upon itself. 1 reflects upon one which in turn is congruent in structure to 2. This nature of 2 is an approximate of one. It is composed of one however it is not equal to one. It is from this nature of approximation that 2 is deficient in the unity of 1.

This leads me back to the 3 points example. The nature of the point as a universal structure, whose deficiency (or limit) is found in the approximate nature of effect results in a deficient structure. A point reflecting another point (as a cause/effect reflection) results in the line. The line in this respect, is a limit to the reflective stability of the structure through the nature of approximation. In these respects as a deficiency it is equivalent to randomness for randomness is strictly a deficiency in order through approximation.

So what we understand of all stable being is duality of cause/effect and randomness whose trifold nature is founded as "Reflection". This nature of reflection leads me back to the point about ethics, and the nature of "Goodness". What we observe as "evil", "bad", or "random" is strictly an observation of subtraction or division (as evidence further through the nature of the line) within being that inherently reflects back towards the cause or "original" being/cause which is full in nature.

All randomness reflects order and goodness for randomness is striclty an approximation of "being" and not a thing in itself. I can go further or elaborate further on any of these points if you wish. Part of the reason I am here is strictly to find a median between what I understand and what other people understand.



I like the idea that goodness determines being, but then everything would partake of this goodness, but solely man is in a position to speak of it. What do you think of Heraclitus' idea that 'salt water is good for fish, but evil to humans to drink'? Where would 'goodness' lie upon our measuring stick, then? Would we define goodness for both and then claim that we are human such that we must do what humans do for their own goodness? Or is it relative?

Well let's look at the nature of duality from a geometric perspective, it is strictly a polarity between points whose polarity results in a constant flux. Duality, as a simultaneous act of multiplication and division of the Monad, in itself is not stable due to a lack of "mediation". The Triadic third element, as a synthesis of the duad into a third point allows for a stability and flux through mediation. An "unmoved mover" so to speak. This is an interesting concept, because if I remember correctly, the Pythagoreans debated over which number was actually "first"....1? or 3? I would argue they are both one and the same and in themselves are a duality whose medial point is 2 (this results again in the triadic structure of 1,2,3). We observe this in the fact that All non-fractal numbers are composed of 1,2 and/or 3.

When we extend this perspective even further into the field of "space" we understand all reality to be composed of 3 spatial dimensions:

The Monad, or 1 as cause, reflecting upon the Monad to maintain itself shows the unifying dimension of space as Reflective which is synonymous as Abstraction.

This nature of Monad, reflecting upon itself, creates the Duad (as an approximation and biproduct Reflection) which in itself is a flux through Polarity. This dimension of space, as flux, is synonymous as Relativity for it is the relation of actual and potential points through flux. From this dimension of "Relative" space we get "time" and "physicality" or "material".


I agree that the dyad is fully relative because it is self-knowledge: Subject and Object with Object apprehending the Subject just as much as the Subject apprehends the Object. These two are pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, unlike the monadisms of materialism and idealism with materialism's cause of matter and effect of mind, and idealism with a cause of mind and an effect of matter.


Now Space as Reflective and Relative is composed of a duad in itself with Relativity being an Approximation of Reflection and Reflection being a Relation of Relativity. This duad of Reflective (or unmovable force) and Relation (or unstoppable force) synthesizes as a third element of Space which is the composite. This nature of Composite Space, or synthesis is the third symmetrical space which forms both itself and the other 2 spaces and is formed by them. Compositism is strictly the manifestation of Dimensional "Limit" (from which all order is founded and ends) and Possible Natures (further dimensional limits).

In regards to the "life after death" I share the same views, but also believe part of this life is the understanding of the choices we have already made. It is in this understanding of "what already exists" (because from the Monad all past, present, future are One) that we simultaneously actualize it. This divine spark of "reasoning" is what makes Humanity children of the Monad, and by proxy extensions of the Monad itself. Our being is formed through the axioms we synthesize for these axioms not only form us and the world around us, but are worlds in and of themselves. So if could be said, in one respect their is no morality, and in a seperate respect everything has a morality. Think about this when observing the nature of the point, circle, and sphere. Everything reflects back to us for reflection is the fullness most stable form of being.


I agree that we are the 'measuring stick' of the universe.


Yes, you are absolutely correct on this. That is part of the reason I am here to be quite frank. I am working on foundation for Philosophy to simultaneously Resurrect and Synthesize these standards through expansion. It is the Geometric Dimensionalism page, and I would appreciate any form of comment you can give.

All reality breaks down to an understanding of space whether this be "consciousness" itself or the nature of number. It is in this understanding of everything as a spatial construct, that the nature of people, groups, idealogies, become strictly points that exist through Reflection, Relation, and Synthesis. It is through the nature of these spaces, that "being" is observed by the propagation and maintenance of unity through structure. We understand that certain acts cause disharmony other promote harmony. We understand that an emphasis on feelings or desire over reason results in instability....and vice versa.

Most moral systems are founded upon specific axioms, in regards to modern civilization, it is consumption and materialism. This inevitabley results in an instability as the nature of consumption and materialism are fundamentally founded in "flux". This flux eventually propogates itself from an emphasis on something simple like the pursuit of material comfort to all out war because the roots of these systems are founded on "desire" which in itself is a deficiency. Any emphasis on deficiency inevitable results in deficiency as a regressive circularity.

As Plato observe, war (or more specifically desire), will always be around and in these respects a respective dual of morality "stability" must also exist by relation. In these respects, and this applies specifically to today's times, we will observe a greater "polarity" between these forces which will inevitably result in a new world.

To get back to the point you brought up about broadness, you are both right and wrong at the same time in different respects. The point you made is correct on its own terms. The way you stated it I agree with. Where I disagree with it, is in the respect that all moral systems are inherently broad. Take for example the 10 commandments of the Three Abrahamic Religions. Upon further examination, under the nature of observed modal conditions, alot of questions can be applied and these commandments may appear in and of themselves to be "too broad" even though 10 is more specific than 1 as the "golden mean". These 10 are fundamentally 10 dimensions of this 1 universal ethical code though. Even from a Pythagorean perspective 10 was the perfect number in respect that it not only recycled back to 1 (1+0=1) but was the foundation for new number systems (11, 12, 13).

From a seperate respect, these laws are fundamentally limits with a limit as not a thing in itself but a gradation of being. In these respects the broadness of being will simultaneously make these limits become "broad".

In another respect the more precise one observes x the more approximate they observe y. It is in these respects the nature of observation maintains a dual element so "clarity" can only be observation through the extension of a median point.



No offense, but I tend to think that numerology and Pythagoreanism are brainwashing if not held in check. Most people end up seeing patterns and numbers where there is no true connection.

I would be interested in reading it, PM me or post the link. I know beside Pythagoras, Leibenz (if I spelled the name right) did extensive work on it. The danger I find with an emphasis on the Monad, even though it is unavoidable, is in the wrong hands unity as "1" somehow turns to a unity as "I" instead. I believe this "alchemy" of "1" to "I" resulted in the poor axiomatic foundation modern Philosophy has to deal with today.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Yes. I have read Leibniz and some of his work 'Monadology'. However, I also used Buddhist and Gnostic inspiration as well.

If you have ever head of the Hermetic Qabalah, I would recommend it as a sort of fun puzzle to put together, because it deals with Pythagorean, Astrological, Alchemical, and Hermetic Thought. To me, the 'I' would be in the 'Heart-space' of Osiris, if that makes any sense to you.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1126
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:59 pm

Viveka wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:44 pm
What we understand of Goodness as Being, is goodness as "fullness" of being for the nature of "being" itself is subject to grades. From a practical perspective, when we observe or label a person or thing as "bad" or "evil" what we are observing is strictly a deficiency in their nature of being. Take for example a man who committed a murder. We, within the English language refer to him as an "evil man" which translates in many respects to a man who is deficient (generally in the application of reasoning or the manifestation of ratios as a form of harmony and justice). Within the nature of English the modality determines the nature of the noun. So from the perspective of certain philosophies we understand "good" and "evil" as "things" within themselves that determine being, in this example "man".

Other languages, and the first and primary example that comes to mind is Hebrew, would say "man evil". The noun determines the modality instead of the other way around. In this respect from this certain perspective philosophy (for languages are philosophies/perspective through which we observe the world) we understand "good" and "evil" as not things in themselves but rather "grades" of being which in turn are determined by being, in this example "man".

The observation of the linear characteristics of language determine the emphasis on what we deem as the nature of "being" and "grades of being". It is in these respects, from a universal language, what we understand of "being" and "good" manifest at the same time in different respects as "modalities" and "universals".

Although we share the same perspective, I disagree about it ruining the "Anthropic idea of an ultimate good that is self-evident for humanity itself" (unless I misunderstand what you are stating). Deficiency is strictly a limit, not a "thing" in itself. Take for example the reflection of 3 causal points. These three causal points, as points, are the fullness of geometric being. The reflection of these points maintains the structure as a triangle and in these respect all these points are simultaneous effects to the preceding causal point. Each point is fundamentally a cause/effect for the other point. However, what we understand of "effect" is fundamentally an approximation of cause, and in this respect each point as a cause maintains a dual element of "approximate cause" (as effect). This nature of effect, as approximation, maintains a deficiency in original cause.

Take for example, from the Pythagorean perspective (because I believe all true Philosophy is rooted with him as foundation), the nature of the monade reflecting upon itself. 1 reflects upon one which in turn is congruent in structure to 2. This nature of 2 is an approximate of one. It is composed of one however it is not equal to one. It is from this nature of approximation that 2 is deficient in the unity of 1.

This leads me back to the 3 points example. The nature of the point as a universal structure, whose deficiency (or limit) is found in the approximate nature of effect results in a deficient structure. A point reflecting another point (as a cause/effect reflection) results in the line. The line in this respect, is a limit to the reflective stability of the structure through the nature of approximation. In these respects as a deficiency it is equivalent to randomness for randomness is strictly a deficiency in order through approximation.

So what we understand of all stable being is duality of cause/effect and randomness whose trifold nature is founded as "Reflection". This nature of reflection leads me back to the point about ethics, and the nature of "Goodness". What we observe as "evil", "bad", or "random" is strictly an observation of subtraction or division (as evidence further through the nature of the line) within being that inherently reflects back towards the cause or "original" being/cause which is full in nature.

All randomness reflects order and goodness for randomness is striclty an approximation of "being" and not a thing in itself. I can go further or elaborate further on any of these points if you wish. Part of the reason I am here is strictly to find a median between what I understand and what other people understand.



I like the idea that goodness determines being, but then everything would partake of this goodness, but solely man is in a position to speak of it. What do you think of Heraclitus' idea that 'salt water is good for fish, but evil to humans to drink'? Where would 'goodness' lie upon our measuring stick, then? Would we define goodness for both and then claim that we are human such that we must do what humans do for their own goodness? Or is it relative?

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".


Well let's look at the nature of duality from a geometric perspective, it is strictly a polarity between points whose polarity results in a constant flux. Duality, as a simultaneous act of multiplication and division of the Monad, in itself is not stable due to a lack of "mediation". The Triadic third element, as a synthesis of the duad into a third point allows for a stability and flux through mediation. An "unmoved mover" so to speak. This is an interesting concept, because if I remember correctly, the Pythagoreans debated over which number was actually "first"....1? or 3? I would argue they are both one and the same and in themselves are a duality whose medial point is 2 (this results again in the triadic structure of 1,2,3). We observe this in the fact that All non-fractal numbers are composed of 1,2 and/or 3.

When we extend this perspective even further into the field of "space" we understand all reality to be composed of 3 spatial dimensions:

The Monad, or 1 as cause, reflecting upon the Monad to maintain itself shows the unifying dimension of space as Reflective which is synonymous as Abstraction.

This nature of Monad, reflecting upon itself, creates the Duad (as an approximation and biproduct Reflection) which in itself is a flux through Polarity. This dimension of space, as flux, is synonymous as Relativity for it is the relation of actual and potential points through flux. From this dimension of "Relative" space we get "time" and "physicality" or "material".


I agree that the dyad is fully relative because it is self-knowledge: Subject and Object with Object apprehending the Subject just as much as the Subject apprehends the Object. These two are pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, unlike the monadisms of materialism and idealism with materialism's cause of matter and effect of mind, and idealism with a cause of mind and an effect of matter.


Now Space as Reflective and Relative is composed of a duad in itself with Relativity being an Approximation of Reflection and Reflection being a Relation of Relativity. This duad of Reflective (or unmovable force) and Relation (or unstoppable force) synthesizes as a third element of Space which is the composite. This nature of Composite Space, or synthesis is the third symmetrical space which forms both itself and the other 2 spaces and is formed by them. Compositism is strictly the manifestation of Dimensional "Limit" (from which all order is founded and ends) and Possible Natures (further dimensional limits).

In regards to the "life after death" I share the same views, but also believe part of this life is the understanding of the choices we have already made. It is in this understanding of "what already exists" (because from the Monad all past, present, future are One) that we simultaneously actualize it. This divine spark of "reasoning" is what makes Humanity children of the Monad, and by proxy extensions of the Monad itself. Our being is formed through the axioms we synthesize for these axioms not only form us and the world around us, but are worlds in and of themselves. So if could be said, in one respect their is no morality, and in a seperate respect everything has a morality. Think about this when observing the nature of the point, circle, and sphere. Everything reflects back to us for reflection is the fullness most stable form of being.


I agree that we are the 'measuring stick' of the universe.


Yes, you are absolutely correct on this. That is part of the reason I am here to be quite frank. I am working on foundation for Philosophy to simultaneously Resurrect and Synthesize these standards through expansion. It is the Geometric Dimensionalism page, and I would appreciate any form of comment you can give.

All reality breaks down to an understanding of space whether this be "consciousness" itself or the nature of number. It is in this understanding of everything as a spatial construct, that the nature of people, groups, idealogies, become strictly points that exist through Reflection, Relation, and Synthesis. It is through the nature of these spaces, that "being" is observed by the propagation and maintenance of unity through structure. We understand that certain acts cause disharmony other promote harmony. We understand that an emphasis on feelings or desire over reason results in instability....and vice versa.

Most moral systems are founded upon specific axioms, in regards to modern civilization, it is consumption and materialism. This inevitabley results in an instability as the nature of consumption and materialism are fundamentally founded in "flux". This flux eventually propogates itself from an emphasis on something simple like the pursuit of material comfort to all out war because the roots of these systems are founded on "desire" which in itself is a deficiency. Any emphasis on deficiency inevitable results in deficiency as a regressive circularity.

As Plato observe, war (or more specifically desire), will always be around and in these respects a respective dual of morality "stability" must also exist by relation. In these respects, and this applies specifically to today's times, we will observe a greater "polarity" between these forces which will inevitably result in a new world.

To get back to the point you brought up about broadness, you are both right and wrong at the same time in different respects. The point you made is correct on its own terms. The way you stated it I agree with. Where I disagree with it, is in the respect that all moral systems are inherently broad. Take for example the 10 commandments of the Three Abrahamic Religions. Upon further examination, under the nature of observed modal conditions, alot of questions can be applied and these commandments may appear in and of themselves to be "too broad" even though 10 is more specific than 1 as the "golden mean". These 10 are fundamentally 10 dimensions of this 1 universal ethical code though. Even from a Pythagorean perspective 10 was the perfect number in respect that it not only recycled back to 1 (1+0=1) but was the foundation for new number systems (11, 12, 13).

From a seperate respect, these laws are fundamentally limits with a limit as not a thing in itself but a gradation of being. In these respects the broadness of being will simultaneously make these limits become "broad".

In another respect the more precise one observes x the more approximate they observe y. It is in these respects the nature of observation maintains a dual element so "clarity" can only be observation through the extension of a median point.



No offense, but I tend to think that numerology and Pythagoreanism are brainwashing if not held in check. Most people end up seeing patterns and numbers where there is no true connection.

You are right, and you may have misinterpreted me or maybe I explained myself poorly. The nature of space and number are synonymous, that is all I am arguing. From this we may understand that numbers through the nature of shapes have certain properties (triangles/three is the most stable, dualities/lines are subject to flux, squaring/4 is an act of understanding by observing the matrix, etc.).

In a seperate respect, certain philosophers have observed (and Wittgenstein comes to the front of my memory) that all mathematical formulas have a a corresponding structure found in nature. Even within the nature of religions, certain numbers reappear. In these respect numbers strictly reflect structure that is all, for structure and number are synonymous.

Numerology, fails because of the axioms it was an is founded upon. One cannot predict the future through numbers, and thier is no universally accepted measurement that "x number" equals "y virtue/vice". Also, one must keep in mind, that even if "x number" equals "y virtue/vice" the very fact that the "universe may be one perpetual equation" means that while 2 + 2 = 4 in reality we may be observing 2x + 2y = 4z with x, y, z being unobserved variables. In these respects, I am neutral about numerology. They have done studies, specifically in Israel, where numerology has failed on its own accounts. Frankly, their are too many variable to measure even if it were "true". Their are too many discrepancies in the measuring systems that it only "works" if one "believes" in it and in these respects is the system true or the belief is what makes it true? This is assuming one believes in it at all.

However, predicting the future is fundamentally based upon the nature of axioms and in these respects the argument stems further than numerology itself.

In regards to Pythagoreanism, you would have to be more specific. My emphasis is strictly that number and space are both the same, his views were similiar. In these respects, all "being" has "reason" to it, for all "reason" as "ratio" has "meaning" through a "center" point with the nature of this "center" being the "essence" and nature of the being in one respect and its "mode" of being in another. This nature of the "center" or finding the "center" is the root of all truth regardless of the nature of the science.


I would be interested in reading it, PM me or post the link. I know beside Pythagoras, Leibenz (if I spelled the name right) did extensive work on it. The danger I find with an emphasis on the Monad, even though it is unavoidable, is in the wrong hands unity as "1" somehow turns to a unity as "I" instead. I believe this "alchemy" of "1" to "I" resulted in the poor axiomatic foundation modern Philosophy has to deal with today.
[/quote]

Yes. I have read Leibniz and some of his work 'Monadology'. However, I also used Buddhist and Gnostic inspiration as well.

If you have ever head of the Hermetic Qabalah, I would recommend it as a sort of fun puzzle to put together, because it deals with Pythagorean, Astrological, Alchemical, and Hermetic Thought. To me, the 'I' would be in the 'Heart-space' of Osiris, if that makes any sense to you.
[/quote]

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Ethics in a nutshell

Post by Viveka » 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?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests