Notifications
Clear all

Morality as Symmetry in Time  

 

John Doe
Founder
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 107
02/01/2019 8:38 pm  

The origin of morality stems from "all of being" as a unified entity in and of itself. We we deem as "moral" is a proper way to be, with what is "proper" observing a form of symmetry. For example it is "proper" to act in one scenario in "x" manner, while "y" manner is deemed improper.
More specifically it is proper to kill in one situation, such as self-defense, in another situation (strictly for pleasure), it is not. The examples can be particularize further from here, but we are still left with a question of "what is proper?"

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.

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".

For example, killing is justified when one is trying to be killed as the "potential death" of the self aligns with the actualization of "killing" to stay alive. The actual state of causing a perceived enemy to "cease" aligns with the framework of potential death.

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).

This symmetry between the active and passive states of "being" lead to a unity or singularity with "unity" being the foundation of not just "being" but an approximation of this "one being" when observed through approximations of it in localized active/passive phenomena.

Each active/passive set of movements is a localization of the "one reality" and exists as an approximation of it and as an approximation takes on a unified nature in itself as an extension of it. Hence we understand morality as a cause/effect paradigm where one singular structure of events leads to another.

Morality as a proper way of being, is rooted in unity of action through symmetry, and is "cause" in itself allowing the observer/framework paradigm to be reciprocating forms of being where "synthesis" is the root of all "cause" and value in the foundation of the not just the human condition but "being" itself.


Quote
Narrow road
Founder
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 218
03/01/2019 11:39 pm  

C.S Lewis in his book Mere Christianity. Puts forth the theory. That the internal 'ought'. Is God the lawgiver to paraphrase. 

IIRC he devotes at least a chapter. To the subject you've described. 

To any unfamiliar with the man. He was an upper middle class Englishman, raised in Ireland. He was educated in a classical naturalism, enlightenment boys school. In his youth, his worldview was atheism. His internal philosophy was natural observable laws are all there is.

Certain observable things in life didn't add up in his estimation. He searched objectively for the answers. At some point in his quest. Jesus Christ, God became more and more rational as he sought answers. 

In summation, he became one of the most prolific Christian apologists of the 20th century. Fun fact, he, Aldous Huxley, and JFK all died the same day.


ReplyQuote
The Evil Genius
Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1849
03/01/2019 11:51 pm  

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me, and is the divinity which Meletus ridicules in the indictment. This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” — Socrates, Plato’s Apology


ReplyQuote
John Doe
Founder
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 107
03/01/2019 11:59 pm  
Posted by: Narrow road

C.S Lewis in his book Mere Christianity. Puts forth the theory. That the internal 'ought'. Is God the lawgiver to paraphrase. 

IIRC he devotes at least a chapter. To the subject you've described. 

To any unfamiliar with the man. He was an upper middle class Englishman, raised in Ireland. He was educated in a classical naturalism, enlightenment boys school. In his youth, his worldview was atheism. His internal philosophy was natural observable laws are all there is.

Certain observable things in life didn't add up in his estimation. He searched objectively for the answers. At some point in his quest. Jesus Christ, God became more and more rational as he sought answers. 

In summation, he became one of the most prolific Christian apologists of the 20th century. Fun fact, he, Aldous Huxley, and JFK all died the same day.

Can you build more off of this?


ReplyQuote
Narrow road
Founder
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 218
04/01/2019 12:27 am  
Posted by: John Doe
Posted by: Narrow road

C.S Lewis in his book Mere Christianity. Puts forth the theory. That the internal 'ought'. Is God the lawgiver to paraphrase. 

IIRC he devotes at least a chapter. To the subject you've described. 

To any unfamiliar with the man. He was an upper middle class Englishman, raised in Ireland. He was educated in a classical naturalism, enlightenment boys school. In his youth, his worldview was atheism. His internal philosophy was natural observable laws are all there is.

Certain observable things in life didn't add up in his estimation. He searched objectively for the answers. At some point in his quest. Jesus Christ, God became more and more rational as he sought answers. 

In summation, he became one of the most prolific Christian apologists of the 20th century. Fun fact, he, Aldous Huxley, and JFK all died the same day.

Can you build more off of this?

The heart of your OP. In my estimation is morality is based purely off of cause and effect. An example of cause and effect in reality. Would be an individual tripping, because another person put their foot out. The person who falls, only fell because a foot was put in the way of the walker.

That event doesn't inherently have morality. The motives of the person who puts their foot out. Is where the question of morality is observable. 

If the person that puts their foot out. Is unconscious that the other person will fall. That person is observable at fault, yet morally innocent. Because no conscious malice was within putting the foot out.

Yet if the person who puts their foot out. Consciously thinks the other will fall. If they put their foot out. Then the person falls, that was an immoral act. An internal 'ought', informed the tripper that it's a harmful action to take. 

I'm stating what I remember from memory. Of what C.S Lewis wrote. He makes many compelling points along the lines of the above example.


ReplyQuote
uoSʎWodɹɐH
Founder
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 676
04/01/2019 2:37 am  

Narrow road  wrote:  If the person that puts their foot out. Is unconscious that the other person will fall. That person is observable at fault, yet morally innocent. Because no conscious malice was within putting the foot out.

I have experienced this first hand.  I have been punished for something that hurt no one.

I was innocent of any evil motive or bad intention.

L&R

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at the idiots who misunderstand me! Kind mockery toward the well-intentioned and unfettered cruelty toward all would-be prison guards of my creative possibilities. In this way I learn to revel as much in misunderstanding as in understanding and take pleasure in worthy opponents. Making language fluid, flowing like a river, yet precise and pointed as a dirk, contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful verbal dance—a linguistic martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.


ReplyQuote
Narrow road
Founder
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 218
04/01/2019 3:09 am  
Posted by: uoSʎWodɹɐH

Narrow road  wrote:  If the person that puts their foot out. Is unconscious that the other person will fall. That person is observable at fault, yet morally innocent. Because no conscious malice was within putting the foot out.

I have experienced this first hand.  I have been punished for something that hurt no one.

I was innocent of any evil motive or bad intention.

L&R

Harpo, all of us who live here on earth. Have been party to the above scenario. 

That's why each of us possess shame. Sometimes an action on my part hurt another. Motive is where sin results in death. Fight for truth.


ReplyQuote
Advertisements