The only thing I might add is that perhaps I'd go a little further towards moral relativism - if only to break our Left Hemisphere's drive to "nail" things once and for all, and our tendency to hyper-moralize. In essence, I do believe in a form of moral realism, BUT how that manifests varies WILDLY depending on context. Also, we must deal with the fact that morality is relative to our development, because we can only learn to act morally in stages. It is a *process*, not a state. This means something might be the right thing at one stage, or for one person at one stage, and wrong for the same person at a later stage, or for another person at a different stage.
For reference, here are some pieces where I develop these thoughts:
May 13, 2023·edited May 13, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
This convinced me to post on LP Koch's place and subscribe to his SubStack.
So, if nothing else, thanks for that.
As for the rest of this - it ain't easy reading, but what value comes from things that are easy I reckon. I intend to read it all fairly and then share a comment that reflects that.
If nothing else, let me express appreciation for the effort involved - this ain't easy to read, but I think it has merit so I intend on reading it all closely - then I'll be back hopefully.
like interesting all these symbolic opposites where the opposites are independently irrational yet the union of the opposites, the spectrum of potential empowered/structured between, become symbolically/psychologically meaningful...
this within a perspective where the best science can do is to model approximate whatever reality might be in ways that provide meaningful predictability...
so absolutism, unknowable outside the perspective that is eternity, is unknowable from our perspective...
yet imagine how the left hemisphere likes certainty, wants to believe that it can know things absolutely, wants this belief to be in control over our valuation standards of what we think we know...
thus shadowing and tending to drive unconscious our right hemisphere perspective, of us consciously vs unconsciously valuating what we think we know from the authenticity of our own experience...
thus leading into that morals ethics become a consider of valuation within a setting where objective reality is a theoretical concept...
as in what do we value, do we value life and the dynamic complex patterned can be painful process that is our experience within consciousness...
or do we value more the desire to escape from this...
May 13, 2023·edited May 13, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
You keep hitting homers, man.
"And the Good as utilitarian, in addition to being the most boring and uninteresting option of them all, is an abstraction and impossibility: it removes the human actor from the whole, it reduces virtue to being a nerd with a calculator, the calculation isn’t even possible, and people don’t actually work like that."
This. And I'd add that it's perhaps the finest systems-example of pride/hubris on offer these days, which unironically is also the top dog of sins. Lucifer is a hero, in his own telling, having thought through all potential outcomes and consulted all charts. The King of Downers, in a sense.
This is how I have always viewed morality. The non-black and white nature of morality in general has always been a given for me. That's why when I first learned that the objective vs subjective morality debate existed, it got me thinking at first, but then I realized that both sides of the debate are making the same mistake. Which you demonstrated very well. Yeah there are some things we ascribe a certain moral judgement to generally that aren't so cut and dry in different contexts, but let's not pretend that this applies to everything we make moral value judgements on.
Going off of what you said in the very end of the article, once you realize that everything in reality is connected and dependent on each other, it can seem paradoxical and contradictory at first, but when you apply this view to specific contexts, it all starts to make more sense. And you eventually won't be able to imagine reality being any other way.
May 19, 2023·edited May 19, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
Wrt contingent practical wisdom, Kruptos’ biblical example (Proverbs 26:4-5) is pleasantly illustrative; behold ↓↓ 😊
🗨 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will become like him yourself.
🗨 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise according to his own eyes.
Then he elucidates:
🗨 That is the essence of wisdom. It is the “thing” that lives between, or is hidden by, two pieces of contradictory advice. They are both right, depending on the circumstances. There is no amount of “rational knowledge” that will give you the power to always have the right answer. There are no “seven steps for successful fool encounters.” You can intuit it. But you don’t really have anything. At best, you have a relationship with God and you trust and have faith that in the moment the right path will present itself.
Love this! And I see evidence that our innate moral sensibilities may be be expressions of our BioSpirit, which some say varies widely among the peoples of this world.
Even spatial relativity is fake science. All movement takes place with respect to a universal frame of reference, as demonstrated by Sagnac et al. and even in simple science experiments like this… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXAVyzxRSS0
Our moral comparisons, too, take place with respect to the same universe, and are therefore absolute, and only evil seeks to pretend that it is otherwise.
Thoroughly enjoyed that, right up my alley!
The only thing I might add is that perhaps I'd go a little further towards moral relativism - if only to break our Left Hemisphere's drive to "nail" things once and for all, and our tendency to hyper-moralize. In essence, I do believe in a form of moral realism, BUT how that manifests varies WILDLY depending on context. Also, we must deal with the fact that morality is relative to our development, because we can only learn to act morally in stages. It is a *process*, not a state. This means something might be the right thing at one stage, or for one person at one stage, and wrong for the same person at a later stage, or for another person at a different stage.
For reference, here are some pieces where I develop these thoughts:
https://luctalks.substack.com/p/moral-realism-without-obligation
https://luctalks.substack.com/p/two-errors-in-ethics-and-theology
https://luctalks.substack.com/p/the-problem-of-evil-solved
This convinced me to post on LP Koch's place and subscribe to his SubStack.
So, if nothing else, thanks for that.
As for the rest of this - it ain't easy reading, but what value comes from things that are easy I reckon. I intend to read it all fairly and then share a comment that reflects that.
If nothing else, let me express appreciation for the effort involved - this ain't easy to read, but I think it has merit so I intend on reading it all closely - then I'll be back hopefully.
BK
like interesting all these symbolic opposites where the opposites are independently irrational yet the union of the opposites, the spectrum of potential empowered/structured between, become symbolically/psychologically meaningful...
this within a perspective where the best science can do is to model approximate whatever reality might be in ways that provide meaningful predictability...
so absolutism, unknowable outside the perspective that is eternity, is unknowable from our perspective...
yet imagine how the left hemisphere likes certainty, wants to believe that it can know things absolutely, wants this belief to be in control over our valuation standards of what we think we know...
thus shadowing and tending to drive unconscious our right hemisphere perspective, of us consciously vs unconsciously valuating what we think we know from the authenticity of our own experience...
thus leading into that morals ethics become a consider of valuation within a setting where objective reality is a theoretical concept...
as in what do we value, do we value life and the dynamic complex patterned can be painful process that is our experience within consciousness...
or do we value more the desire to escape from this...
You keep hitting homers, man.
"And the Good as utilitarian, in addition to being the most boring and uninteresting option of them all, is an abstraction and impossibility: it removes the human actor from the whole, it reduces virtue to being a nerd with a calculator, the calculation isn’t even possible, and people don’t actually work like that."
This. And I'd add that it's perhaps the finest systems-example of pride/hubris on offer these days, which unironically is also the top dog of sins. Lucifer is a hero, in his own telling, having thought through all potential outcomes and consulted all charts. The King of Downers, in a sense.
This is how I have always viewed morality. The non-black and white nature of morality in general has always been a given for me. That's why when I first learned that the objective vs subjective morality debate existed, it got me thinking at first, but then I realized that both sides of the debate are making the same mistake. Which you demonstrated very well. Yeah there are some things we ascribe a certain moral judgement to generally that aren't so cut and dry in different contexts, but let's not pretend that this applies to everything we make moral value judgements on.
Going off of what you said in the very end of the article, once you realize that everything in reality is connected and dependent on each other, it can seem paradoxical and contradictory at first, but when you apply this view to specific contexts, it all starts to make more sense. And you eventually won't be able to imagine reality being any other way.
Wrt contingent practical wisdom, Kruptos’ biblical example (Proverbs 26:4-5) is pleasantly illustrative; behold ↓↓ 😊
🗨 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will become like him yourself.
🗨 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise according to his own eyes.
Then he elucidates:
🗨 That is the essence of wisdom. It is the “thing” that lives between, or is hidden by, two pieces of contradictory advice. They are both right, depending on the circumstances. There is no amount of “rational knowledge” that will give you the power to always have the right answer. There are no “seven steps for successful fool encounters.” You can intuit it. But you don’t really have anything. At best, you have a relationship with God and you trust and have faith that in the moment the right path will present itself.
Love this! And I see evidence that our innate moral sensibilities may be be expressions of our BioSpirit, which some say varies widely among the peoples of this world.
Have you read the Codex Orea Linda?
Great essay, although strangely lacking in Hume, and more importantly, Smith :D
I am writing up a response essay now!
Thanks HK. The majority of folk are familiar with the terms moral & immoral.
Far too few folk know or are aware of what amoral is.
The world is currently in the grip & power of amoral entities. Unfortunately.
Even spatial relativity is fake science. All movement takes place with respect to a universal frame of reference, as demonstrated by Sagnac et al. and even in simple science experiments like this… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXAVyzxRSS0
Our moral comparisons, too, take place with respect to the same universe, and are therefore absolute, and only evil seeks to pretend that it is otherwise.