logicp_writings/Book/Objective_Morality.md

Objective Morality

How can we infer an objective morality from the laws of reality/physics?

Some might question what is real, but if they are unsure that anything is real, then we have no fundamental premise upon which to establish any agreement. There must be, at minimum, an agreement that there does exist something real. Then the fun begins, because we must define reality. We can propose a few variations:

1. Reality is all that can be observed or experienced
2. Reality is all that is, regardless of whether it can be observed
3. Reality is everything that is every material composition
4. Reality is anything that can be proven with science
5. Reality is the belief that one's experience can be witnessed by another

Each of this is a proposed agreement.

Does it Exist?

It must exist, and it is must be understandable. Just as we learn through geometrical, or better, spatial reprenestation and abstraction, there is a structure to morality in the sense that we understand the capacity of human experience to include pain and suffering, and we represent it in our visual cortexes. Though we cannot know an experience without it being our own known experience, we can do such things as compare two imaginary experiences, or compare analogs to experiences. Ultimtaely, we need to find a way of always conceptualizing someone's direct experience, and not a group representation's pseudoexperience.

Again, though it seems our understanding of morality and ethics come about through human experience and the coniciding forms within their social context in consideration of pain, suffering and death, we must ask ourselves: are the spatial transformations taking place among those high level events simply incidental? What are the fields of observation along which tragedy and evil occur?

High Level

Global (migration patterns), Solar system (supernovae), black holes, asteroid/comet impacts and gravitational influence, small planetary collision, galactic events (black holes, quasars, neutron stars, galactic collisions). Untold tragedy outside one's cognitive grasp.

We must understand our general conceptions of morality as well as the in-depth manner in which we come to possess a sense of morality, and juxtapose this against the laws of physics and the naturally inherent phenomena which destroy, create and transform.

Immunity

Immune to all forces. Immune to limits imposed on my subjective experience. It is for this reason alone that we fall into a mindset which assumes "my truth".

That is, even without mysticism, we come to view the world in such a way where the particulars of our experiences are better understood because of their whole, and why wouldn't that be the case? Their presence is part of the entirety of one's experience and it modifies or informs one's conception of self. That one considers a progression in the formulation of and reflection of one's self-conception is both a testament to the depth and complexity of one's experience, as well as a form of progress and improvement which gives meaning while attenuating the suffering of life, and all that it entails.

There is always a feeling of "my truth" and to grant that any and all could ahve derived an equal comparable experience or, beter yet, the identical experience takes tremedous humility and/or death of the ego (in some scientific experience).

Please be well

Nihilist reactions

The eyes roll and the patience evaporates. We already had a stable and secure understanding that all of our woes were legitimate - our laziness rationalized, and the selling out or commiting of the futures of our loved ones to the state was something for which we had no choice about. The world was so cruel to me and my loved ones, and at least we had the higher intelligence and power of the state to make the best of it, but now you come and claim that our suffering was not real, and that my complaints were unfounded, and that all that I felt was meaningless. You must be a callous monster wo enjoys seeing people suffer!

Replacing Zero

Time for play! Replace preconceptions with aspirations to discover and expectations for easy growth and improved unerstanding.In this space, we all wish for one another's concurrent growth yielding inspiration to propel one another, and opportunity to witness higher levels of success as a precedent for upcoming achievement.

There is no zero-sum, but an infinite potential which was established as part of the fundamental structure of reality. Though we might assume zero sum by virtue of our limited experiences and our recognition of the laws of thermodynamics, what easily disproves that limited perception are teh nearly limitless variations in the composition of matter, the range of which take temporal frames beyond the possible existence of mankind through which to have been formed, and the seemingly non-linear relationships between these forms.

That is, the range of potential is composed such as to yield what is tantamout to infinite for our experential purposes, and it is through our endeavours that they are harnessed, and not the tragedy of reality.

I've always found that this dialogue is unavoidable, where we contend with the complexity of measuring rate of progress. Where some might measure it in wealth, or computing power, but one is at a loss to understand how their power translates change within this system. Some might relate it with less concrete indices, but the issue remains the same: we talk past one another rather than talking about the laws of our shared reality, because we don't all presuppose that reality is shared (which, in all fairness, is easy to believe because we don't perceive it the same).

If it is possible to have great growth, how much is our attitude and demeanour affecting it? How can we demonstrate and prove a moral imperative to remind ourselves to adjust or improve our psychological outlook?

The Dialectic Progresses

And so the dialectic progresses through the understanding of teh child. If we dissolve or make ambiguous the concept of childhood as per a belief that doing so will ultimately lead to a form of liberation, the it becomes a moral imperative to do away with the previous conceptions previously relied upon to differentiate between adult and child. To have a moral imperative which does away with the very distinction which we already utilize for delimiting behaviours which exploit and allow for oppressive acts by adults on the basis on an assumed extant oppression chiefly evaluated as per the context of adults.

So, then, is the impetus to redefine the child one which views it as the potential to subject the child to a different set of harms, or does it only view it as the process which removes the child from the threat of harm? Because the endeavour itself is characterized as one which intends to reduce oppression, not just of the child but more broadly in the surrounding world, but if definitions of children allow for potential of harm to manifest, then any additional instance of defining a child must contend with this. The pushback from Queer Theory is, of course, that traditional definitions and categories perform the harm, thus this is an explicit effort to identify non-traditional categories and categories which represent the lack of a definition.

If defining the child is undertaken purely to mitigate oppression of the child once it reaches adulthood, then it is a sacrifice of the child.

Let's pause the low level explications and return to the higher level

Refining

We mostly want human progress, but we mostly believe it is fulfilled because of how it interferes with our 'experience', which is to say our body.

For some, such an evaluation is mostly occurring as one realizes the moment they are experiencing is closer to being in line with what represents their ideal expression (in the first order) as living insofar that one is focused on their chosen activity. For others it is experienced as per a second-order evaluation as to whether their ideas are being propogated.

This latter case is either characterized as perpetuating one's morality or one's influence, depending on the degree to which one feels empathy.

Second Order in the sense that one is reflecing on the structure of thought being constructed and erected in other people's minds.

Next, is it even possible? Is it possible that progress can be made? If so, then what does it depend on? If you believe it follows your own progress, then it is sustainable and self-sufficient, but if it occurs at at the demonstration of others, then you shall seek to enslave them. If there is no progress, then you seek either revenge or acceptance.