I could choose to believe that I know what you're talking about because sometimes I think perhaps I understand but then again, who knows what you actually mean when you speak like this? Just look at the first thing you say:
"The origin of morality stems from "all of being" as a unified entity in and of itself".
The origin of morality stems from all being, the orign of morality is a... unified entity... in and of itself? This could be forgivable if you then started defining terms and explaining further but you don't. Instead you start talking about "symmetry" which as an idea is imprecise in that it is certainly not as universal as you make it out to be.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/charts-reveal-w ... 46680?IR=T
So we have a list here of things "Americans think are immoral" according to the first survey I found in google. Stem cell research, birth control, pornography, doctor-assisted suicide, sex between teenagers, suicide, early pregnancy.
What's the symmetry here you're talking about? You've cherry picked some examples to make your case but you don't actually understand morality in the slightest. You say that you've held dying men and dealt with dramatic situations, I actually already knew about that because I've read a post of yours where you talk about it. Those situations are more likely to bias you than give you real insight, real insight comes from unbiased observation where you're trying to learn rather than confirm your biases or involve yourself in the topic only to offer your insights and lessons, as you are here.
Back to your unreadable post though.
I only think that's what you're talking about when you refer to symmetry because it seems that way but it's not easy to be sure of what you're saying because of how horribly you use language. Next paragraph:
"Considering each active action is deemed as proper depending upon its manifestation in a receiving or "passive" framework, with the framework being any set of events in which the moral action is activated, the action is deemed as "moral" dependent upon its symmetry to a passive (or recieving) set of events the observer "projects" himself into"
You do not explain the idea of a "receiving or passive framework" or justify your claim in any sense. I googled it because I thought perhaps you're just referring to an established theory but there's nothing.
You throw in words like "manifestation" but what does that actually mean here? You don't explain how the manifestation could be different in a way that can change the outcome. I could infer that you're talking about your comments about murder but from this paragraph until that example, you say a LOT, so how can I be sure? What's an "active action"?
"The action is deemed as "moral" dependant upon its symmetry to a passive set of evnets the observer projects himself into".
You've cherry-picked murder as an example. Refer back to the list of most immoral things for Americans. Some actions are just considered immoral regardless of the context. Once again, you are not really approaching morality from a perspective that shows understanding.
Look at what you've typed.
"The reciprocal nature of the framework, allowing such action to even begin with, necessitates a symmetry between an active/passive nature to the observer/framework and in these respects we are left with symmetry as a foundation for not just morality but an effectual mirror effect where the symmetry between the active and passive (as one fitting into the other) shows a form of "unity"."
What reciprocal nature of the framework? You said the framework is the context of the action and now you're saying it's reciprocal but no explanation. Why does it necessitate a symmetry? You've given an example of where you think it does without explaining why it necessitates it. What unity are you talking about?
This is actually pretty tame considering what comes next, you start using terms as though you've explained or demonstrated them but the result is completely incomprehensible arguments.
I won't go through the rest of your post, it's more of the same. Same as Logik, you don't care about why I'm talking to you in the first place. You want to educate me, argue with me or show how smart you are. I am not interested. I am talking to you because you put a lot of effort into philosophy and your ideas but you make no effort to be understood and it's a bit sad to watch.In these respects, what deems morality as a proper way of being is not just conducive to "timing" but an inherent symmetry through reciprocation that unifies the actions of the observer to a proper set of movements in time (a homeless person begging for food or a man trying to kill the observer effectively are just movements and nothing more).
Perhaps other forum members respond to you and try to argue with you, even though they have no idea what you're saying and never said as much, so you didn't know, just re-read your discussion with Charm or Tryingmybest. They have taken a few things you've said that they can understand and tried to have a conversation, I've read a couple of your threads and I've never seen anyone paraphrase it or argue with all of it, or do anything that suggests that they fully understand what you've said.
I'm not really trying to be a good person and I got some laughs out of this thread that I was looking for, certainly not interested in a debate about the "limits of morality" when I've read probably more than 2000 words of you talking about it and still, barely any idea what you're arguing for or against. Perhaps you can learn something out of this conversation and maybe you can't, it's up to you.
You seem to think you've slaughtered me as an offering to your intellect but even if you had, I don't think anyone here would be able to understand how you did it or what you even said. Least of all Logik who would require you to define even basic words that most people agree on a definition for, let alone all the words you've used that genuinely require explanations.