The Moral Nature of Unity

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

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

The moral question of unity in the individual, culture (religion) and government has a threefold nature.

1) Unity where everything exists as an extension of the one, in which case individuals view themselves as extensions of eachother the environment they are from and work with it with no individual identity.

The culture and government come first with the individual as last.

2) Unit where everything exists through the individual only, in which case individuals and the corresponding institutions are viewed as units which compete for personal survival against eachother and the artificial and natural environment they are a part of.

The culture and government are defined through force of will by the individual.

3) Unity and Unit as One where everything exists as is and the dualism between those who view themselves as extensions of the one, and those who view themselves as one in themselves, is merely the manner in which all being exists as both 1 and many and individuals are both extensions of the environment and there people, while people and the environment are simultaneously responsible for themselves.

The culture, government, and individual are simultaneously responsible for themselves and others.




Thoughts.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

I have always advocate morality in terms of Team Humanity where the individual[s] must be of the highest competence individually but at the same time the best as a team player.
The analogy is like a symphony orchestra where the individual[s] must be the best [optimal] as an individual but has the highest ability to align with the whole to produce synergy [1+1=3].

However I do not agree the individual[s] should 'compete' [zero-sum games] against each other.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:02 am I have always advocate morality in terms of Team Humanity where the individual[s] must be of the highest competence individually but at the same time the best as a team player.
The analogy is like a symphony orchestra where the individual[s] must be the best [optimal] as an individual but has the highest ability to align with the whole to produce synergy [1+1=3].

However I do not agree the individual[s] should 'compete' [zero-sum games] against each other.
All competition is merely a "rising above" or progression where A form of relativity is involved in which one individual/group is directed away from another. This nature of competition effectively necessitates a form of survival in the truest sense where the individual/group rises above disorder through order.

Under these terms the competitive nature, inherent in not just team work (in the common form of the word) but the nature of morality/ethics involved with all group behavior, is strictly the formation of order through nothingness as a form of unity.

One only compete against the darkess of ignorance and this nature of competition, as a form of "rising above" synonymous to survival, necessitates the formation of order either physically or abstractly. Competition is a movement towards unity by rising above disorder.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:17 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:02 am I have always advocate morality in terms of Team Humanity where the individual[s] must be of the highest competence individually but at the same time the best as a team player.
The analogy is like a symphony orchestra where the individual[s] must be the best [optimal] as an individual but has the highest ability to align with the whole to produce synergy [1+1=3].

However I do not agree the individual[s] should 'compete' [zero-sum games] against each other.
All competition is merely a "rising above" or progression where A form of relativity is involved in which one individual/group is directed away from another. This nature of competition effectively necessitates a form of survival in the truest sense where the individual/group rises above disorder through order.

Under these terms the competitive nature, inherent in not just team work (in the common form of the word) but the nature of morality/ethics involved with all group behavior, is strictly the formation of order through nothingness as a form of unity.

One only compete against the darkness of ignorance and this nature of competition, as a form of "rising above" synonymous to survival, necessitates the formation of order either physically or abstractly. Competition is a movement towards unity by rising above disorder.
It is noted competition is a critical thing at present and it has contributed to the unity and progress of humanity.
However I see competition [useful conditionally] as a very primitive instinct which should be weaned-off as humanity evolved into the future. Competition generate loads of wastage.
In the future, the default should be co-operation to optimize synergy.

This is like 'religion' as a useful tool but it is very primitive and useful for certain phase of human evolution. Religions should be weaned off and replaced by fool proof spiritual methods to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

It is too immature to use 'compete' in relation to the darkness of ignorance. Rather the darkness of ignorance should be enlightened by the torchlight of knowledge.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:37 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:17 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:02 am I have always advocate morality in terms of Team Humanity where the individual[s] must be of the highest competence individually but at the same time the best as a team player.
The analogy is like a symphony orchestra where the individual[s] must be the best [optimal] as an individual but has the highest ability to align with the whole to produce synergy [1+1=3].

However I do not agree the individual[s] should 'compete' [zero-sum games] against each other.
All competition is merely a "rising above" or progression where A form of relativity is involved in which one individual/group is directed away from another. This nature of competition effectively necessitates a form of survival in the truest sense where the individual/group rises above disorder through order.

Under these terms the competitive nature, inherent in not just team work (in the common form of the word) but the nature of morality/ethics involved with all group behavior, is strictly the formation of order through nothingness as a form of unity.

One only compete against the darkness of ignorance and this nature of competition, as a form of "rising above" synonymous to survival, necessitates the formation of order either physically or abstractly. Competition is a movement towards unity by rising above disorder.
It is noted competition is a critical thing at present and it has contributed to the unity and progress of humanity.
However I see competition [useful conditionally] as a very primitive instinct which should be weaned-off as humanity evolved into the future. Competition generate loads of wastage.
In the future, the default should be co-operation to optimize synergy.

This is like 'religion' as a useful tool but it is very primitive and useful for certain phase of human evolution. Religions should be weaned off and replaced by fool proof spiritual methods to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

It is too immature to use 'compete' in relation to the darkness of ignorance. Rather the darkness of ignorance should be enlightened by the torchlight of knowledge.
To eliminate the primitive, that which is prime or original to the human condition is to eliminate the human condition itself considering what is prime to the human condition is observation (the root of the scientific method with many of its foundational discoveries, that paved the road for what you observe as true while eventually being proven primitive in the course of time as well).

To eliminate the primitive, or prime, aspects of the human condition you may as well eliminate thinking, eating, sleeping, friendship, etc.

Prime within the human condition is measurement. These measurements stem from limits. These limits are merely directed movement as directed movement is measurement.

Look up the book of 24 philosophers, I am on an iPad and do not have the copy paste thing down yet.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:37 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:17 pm

All competition is merely a "rising above" or progression where A form of relativity is involved in which one individual/group is directed away from another. This nature of competition effectively necessitates a form of survival in the truest sense where the individual/group rises above disorder through order.

Under these terms the competitive nature, inherent in not just team work (in the common form of the word) but the nature of morality/ethics involved with all group behavior, is strictly the formation of order through nothingness as a form of unity.

One only compete against the darkness of ignorance and this nature of competition, as a form of "rising above" synonymous to survival, necessitates the formation of order either physically or abstractly. Competition is a movement towards unity by rising above disorder.
It is noted competition is a critical thing at present and it has contributed to the unity and progress of humanity.
However I see competition [useful conditionally] as a very primitive instinct which should be weaned-off as humanity evolved into the future. Competition generate loads of wastage.
In the future, the default should be co-operation to optimize synergy.

This is like 'religion' as a useful tool but it is very primitive and useful for certain phase of human evolution. Religions should be weaned off and replaced by fool proof spiritual methods to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

It is too immature to use 'compete' in relation to the darkness of ignorance. Rather the darkness of ignorance should be enlightened by the torchlight of knowledge.
To eliminate the primitive, that which is prime or original to the human condition is to eliminate the human condition itself considering what is prime to the human condition is observation (the root of the scientific method with many of its foundational discoveries, that paved the road for what you observe as true while eventually being proven primitive in the course of time as well).

To eliminate the primitive, or prime, aspects of the human condition you may as well eliminate thinking, eating, sleeping, friendship, etc.

Prime within the human condition is measurement. These measurements stem from limits. These limits are merely directed movement as directed movement is measurement.

Look up the book of 24 philosophers, I am on an iPad and do not have the copy paste thing down yet.
Principle of Charity?
From context it is obvious I am not proposing to get rid of the critical basic instincts.
"Competition" is not a basic instinct which are breathing, food, water, sex, security as per Maslow.

If you are familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the "highest" i.e. self actualized peak performers will focus on co-operation rather than competition.

In any case, competition is antithetic to morality.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:37 am
It is noted competition is a critical thing at present and it has contributed to the unity and progress of humanity.
However I see competition [useful conditionally] as a very primitive instinct which should be weaned-off as humanity evolved into the future. Competition generate loads of wastage.
In the future, the default should be co-operation to optimize synergy.

This is like 'religion' as a useful tool but it is very primitive and useful for certain phase of human evolution. Religions should be weaned off and replaced by fool proof spiritual methods to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

It is too immature to use 'compete' in relation to the darkness of ignorance. Rather the darkness of ignorance should be enlightened by the torchlight of knowledge.
To eliminate the primitive, that which is prime or original to the human condition is to eliminate the human condition itself considering what is prime to the human condition is observation (the root of the scientific method with many of its foundational discoveries, that paved the road for what you observe as true while eventually being proven primitive in the course of time as well).

To eliminate the primitive, or prime, aspects of the human condition you may as well eliminate thinking, eating, sleeping, friendship, etc.

Prime within the human condition is measurement. These measurements stem from limits. These limits are merely directed movement as directed movement is measurement.

Look up the book of 24 philosophers, I am on an iPad and do not have the copy paste thing down yet.
Principle of Charity?
From context it is obvious I am not proposing to get rid of the critical basic instincts.
"Competition" is not a basic instinct which are breathing, food, water, sex, security as per Maslow.

If you are familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the "highest" i.e. self actualized peak performers will focus on co-operation rather than competition.

In any case, competition is antithetic to morality.
Competition is rising above something, and if one is truly objective in their understanding of the human condition they will be aware that to compete is not to rise above ones neighbor (or shares ignorance as well) but to rise above ignorance.

True competition cannot be against ones neighbor but rather against ignorance as a darkness of the intellect, emotions and bodily state.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:12 am From context it is obvious I am not proposing to get rid of the critical basic instincts.
"Competition" is not a basic instinct which are breathing, food, water, sex, security as per Maslow.

If you are familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the "highest" i.e. self actualized peak performers will focus on co-operation rather than competition.

In any case, competition is antithetic to morality.
Competition is rising above something, and if one is truly objective in their understanding of the human condition they will be aware that to compete is not to rise above ones neighbor (or shares ignorance as well) but to rise above ignorance.

True competition cannot be against ones neighbor but rather against ignorance as a darkness of the intellect, emotions and bodily state.
Why do you insist on the term 'competition' which basically is;
In the longer run we should strive for co-operation and teamwork to achieve whatever is intended instead of framing such in terms of 'competition'.

We should use the concept of co-operation to deal with ignorance as a darkness of the intellect, emotions and bodily state.

Note again, 'competition' is antithetic to morality.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:12 am From context it is obvious I am not proposing to get rid of the critical basic instincts.
"Competition" is not a basic instinct which are breathing, food, water, sex, security as per Maslow.

If you are familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the "highest" i.e. self actualized peak performers will focus on co-operation rather than competition.

In any case, competition is antithetic to morality.
Competition is rising above something, and if one is truly objective in their understanding of the human condition they will be aware that to compete is not to rise above ones neighbor (or shares ignorance as well) but to rise above ignorance.

True competition cannot be against ones neighbor but rather against ignorance as a darkness of the intellect, emotions and bodily state.
Why do you insist on the term 'competition' which basically is;
In the longer run we should strive for co-operation and teamwork to achieve whatever is intended instead of framing such in terms of 'competition'.

We should use the concept of co-operation to deal with ignorance as a darkness of the intellect, emotions and bodily state.

Note again, 'competition' is antithetic to morality.
Competition is the opposition of nothing through pure being, and because of this has an inherent nature of sacrificial love, or agape, within it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:13 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:49 am

Competition is rising above something, and if one is truly objective in their understanding of the human condition they will be aware that to compete is not to rise above ones neighbor (or shares ignorance as well) but to rise above ignorance.

True competition cannot be against ones neighbor but rather against ignorance as a darkness of the intellect, emotions and bodily state.
Why do you insist on the term 'competition' which basically is;
In the longer run we should strive for co-operation and teamwork to achieve whatever is intended instead of framing such in terms of 'competition'.

We should use the concept of co-operation to deal with ignorance as a darkness of the intellect, emotions and bodily state.

Note again, 'competition' is antithetic to morality.
Competition is the opposition of nothing through pure being, and because of this has an inherent nature of sacrificial love, or agape, within it.
What kind of nonsense is that?

You are simply bastardizing the term 'competition' for some extreme reason.

The fundamental of reality is dualistic, 0 and 1, Yin and Yang, etc. It would be very stupid to insist Yin competes with Yang because they are opposites. The more appropriate term is complementarity, unity within diversity or co-operation.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:13 am
Why do you insist on the term 'competition' which basically is;
In the longer run we should strive for co-operation and teamwork to achieve whatever is intended instead of framing such in terms of 'competition'.

We should use the concept of co-operation to deal with ignorance as a darkness of the intellect, emotions and bodily state.

Note again, 'competition' is antithetic to morality.
Competition is the opposition of nothing through pure being, and because of this has an inherent nature of sacrificial love, or agape, within it.
What kind of nonsense is that?

You are simply bastardizing the term 'competition' for some extreme reason.

The fundamental of reality is dualistic, 0 and 1, Yin and Yang, etc. It would be very stupid to insist Yin competes with Yang because they are opposites. The more appropriate term is complementarity, unity within diversity or co-operation.
Not really, all competition is rising above an opponent (a form of transcendence). The nature of this opponent can have a human quality where the human embodies negative virtues or strictly a rising above the negative virtues themselves as a purer form of competing. Agape, as self sacrificial love is embodied when competition takes on a form of transcendence as a sacrifice of the self through the self for a cause fuller than the self. Competition is false and wrong when premised in absence of cause through a strict subjective only (with the subjective self being void and nothing).

All duality is opposition through contradiction, hence necessitates a premise of "the war of all through all" as a continual form of struggle through division.

If Yin and Yang were unified it would be through the limits which contain them (The circle, wave (alternating lines), point which reflects the triadic foundations of western geometry as the point, Line and circle. The yin and yang are opposing non forms canceling out to result in forms.

The yin and yang is triadic in nature with the dual no forms synthesizing as form and coming from form. Form, yin or yang can be as one in themselves existing through the other as 1 in 3 or 3 in one.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

This moral nature of unity necessitates a move towards a global form of governing philosophy as well embodies through all religions.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by gaffo »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:33 am The moral question of unity in the individual, culture (religion) and government has a threefold nature.

1) Unity where everything exists as an extension of the one, in which case individuals view themselves as extensions of eachother the environment they are from and work with it with no individual identity.

The culture and government come first with the individual as last.

2) Unit where everything exists through the individual only, in which case individuals and the corresponding institutions are viewed as units which compete for personal survival against eachother and the artificial and natural environment they are a part of.

The culture and government are defined through force of will by the individual.

3) Unity and Unit as One where everything exists as is and the dualism between those who view themselves as extensions of the one, and those who view themselves as one in themselves, is merely the manner in which all being exists as both 1 and many and individuals are both extensions of the environment and there people, while people and the environment are simultaneously responsible for themselves.

The culture, government, and individual are simultaneously responsible for themselves and others.




Thoughts.

I did not understand your post overall,

but think i fall into #2 myself.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Moral Nature of Unity

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

gaffo wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:33 am The moral question of unity in the individual, culture (religion) and government has a threefold nature.

1) Unity where everything exists as an extension of the one, in which case individuals view themselves as extensions of eachother the environment they are from and work with it with no individual identity.

The culture and government come first with the individual as last.

2) Unit where everything exists through the individual only, in which case individuals and the corresponding institutions are viewed as units which compete for personal survival against eachother and the artificial and natural environment they are a part of.

The culture and government are defined through force of will by the individual.

3) Unity and Unit as One where everything exists as is and the dualism between those who view themselves as extensions of the one, and those who view themselves as one in themselves, is merely the manner in which all being exists as both 1 and many and individuals are both extensions of the environment and there people, while people and the environment are simultaneously responsible for themselves.

The culture, government, and individual are simultaneously responsible for themselves and others.




Thoughts.

I did not understand your post overall,

but think i fall into #2 myself.
Point one: people only think about the state.

Point two: people only think about themselves and not the state.

Point three: people who think about themselves and other's as more conducive to natural law.


The nature of unity has multiple concepts where unity can either be joining or dividing.

Unity has a tri-fold nature.
Post Reply