The Breath and Scope of Objective Truths
In the iconoclastic world we are used to cultural and social and systemic things having some kind of internal guidance system, morality for instance aims at the truth and tries hard not to divert from it, if a particular individual is straying from a systematized moral perspective then his consciousness and fellow parishioners will surely guide him, through peer pressure, back into the proper path, that auto-guidance is however both internal and external but it is not one very important thing, objective! It is fully subjective and wholly contrived by the participants, the question must then be how wide and deep is a given truth? as that is the only way that it can be sustained and held together throughout its participatory structure.
Since we started with morality we shall attempt to keep on that bearing so that we don’t have to deal with eclectic conclusions and events, instead we will drive this one down the thin road that it inhabits. A great number of people, if not all, steer their lives based on some moral principle, there can be religious moral principles and there are patriotic moral principles and sometimes they can be mixed but equally they may operate wholly independent of one another, an example being: A patriot can kill to defend his country and that is an honorable and justified killing, a Christian by contrast ought not and shall not kill even in self defense, Jesus Christ opted not to defend himself against the Romans thus amply showing that it would be wrong to react in vengeance or self defense, and more displaying unusually high favoritism towards pacifism. Both the faithful and patriotic are acting on principles that are moral though they dictate here a different mode of action, it could equally be said that a patriot must display a considerable amount of valor, that is not to be a coward, and we can easily connect the soldier and Jesus here in same moral actions, for what Jesus did was substantially brave even as it imply letting himself get killed, and the patriot might kill but if he does it is in self defense which is both honorable and brave, thus the patriot honors the wishes of his mother country and Jesus honors the wishes of his father God.
The clear straight path of linearity in the context of moral behavior is what makes us love morality for if all humans would act according to the same moral guidelines they would then be predictable hence the reason why we give morality so much favor in daily existence and try to practice it or claim devout practice to it regardless of our true moral and subjective position. As with anything that enough people believe Morality itself acquires a third party mentality, that is an objective perspective, an independence from individuality is had when an aggregate critical mass of people believe it, this is because the mass appeal of morality creates an ephemeral but very real entity that acts in the interest of all and not in the interest of any given individual, thus the independence of morality is found in the fact that any belief system that acquires a mass following is equally and wonderfully able to hide its subjective origins in mass dynamic, that is to say its subjective benefits become impossible to discern, and thus act as if independent of personalized interest, you thus cannot see how the construct of a patriotic morality could possibly be dependent on some individual-subjective constructs, nor could you see how anyone that is willing to die for all of humanity could possibly care about himself first and foremost, the assumption is then that the Patriot and Jesus Christ, even as acting on behalf of the interests that they have personalized are in fact acting selflessly and honorably.
Thus you can see how a construct that is formally and fundamentally subjective i.e. morality becomes a subject that acquires a third party subjectivity, the construct of our shared belief. Now the third party subjective by virtue of its essence has to save and serve the many, thus its presume objectivity has to be limited and limiting in scope, thus the reason why any sort of modern day morality has 10 commandments, 10 bill of rights, 7 constitutional articles, these may well be very clear such as “thou shall not kill.” Very little possible room for interpretation there, it has positively no escape clause or loopholes, “thou shall not kill,” even mosquitoes are safe from the fly swatter with this one, however most people will refrain from taking it so literally certainly god did not mean though shall not kill mosquitoes, and wildlife hunters think that god wasn’t speaking on behalf of all species, it was a god of men speaking on behalf of men only, and then you get into more trouble but then god ate fish or didn’t he? The inherent point here is that the simplicity of belief and scope is mandated by the shared third party realism.
The reason for the narrow moral path is that not everyone can agree if the options available are many, humans like things to be in groupings of ten or less, and these groupings ought to have similarities so they don’t get too complex for comprehension, else their mass appeal will meander down many a dead ended alleys and compromise its third person status through divisional conspiracies, hence the reason that there have sprouted so many denominational versions of the original catholic church, Henry the 8th was able to interpret the moral semantic to allow for divorce, obviously it wasn’t narrow enough if someone as narrow minded as Henry could see an alternative whole church of England; further each division created by each denomination of the church is evidence that the original church was to wide in scope and thus it is being narrowed through denominational division to save the truth. This is why each new version of the old church, the Muslims, the protestants, the charismatic Christians, etc, can all claim that they are following a more accurate and genuine version of the faith, think Luther.
Thus we may conclude that narrowness of mission and thinness of creed is relevant in any and all functional third party structures that want to acquire mass appeal and promote an ambience of objectivity, further any overreaching concept will suffer divisional strife until it cannot be subdivided any further thus reaching the minutia of its truth.
Now while the following topic could be a whole other chapter or even a whole other book I and going to cover it here so that it remains narrow and thin, why would any truth want to be so simple? And just why is objectivity so relevant?
As the truth is simple so goes the answer: we already know that any truth in order to acquire mass appeal must have lots in common with the mass, but a truth must also be simple in order to remain the truth, that is to say that any truth in order to call its truth a truth must cater to something very deterministic and shortsighted, it cannot cater to complex and intricate matters as these will have a natural tendency to dwindle down the truth to insignificance, thus a truth must opine over that which the mass already has in common, and that means over the things which are already truth for the mass, the truth spoken is thus born after the truth is felt and its simplicity is inherent because it is an endemically, that is a commonly realized truth.
Objectivity itself is relevant because it allows us to construct a living environment composed of the simplest parts that we all have in common, thus you can blame any problem of communication and interaction on the fact that we are always connected through the urgings of our lowest common denominators. Wars, racism, moral quandaries fall into this category, the communality of the human species, one on one, one to many or many to many is held hostage by the fact that our consciousness hasn’t personalized the idea of tribe. Thus everyone prefers to think that they are different and special and this is what cancels out the tribe spirit, but the reason we do so has less to do with bad intentions than with a terrible happenstance, that is we don’t really know ourselves, our uniqueness in relationship to the rest of the species rest purely on our ignorance of ourselves, or our lack of personalized intuition of the communality of species, this even across species types, and thus the objective third party construct can only be objectified through the miserably little awareness, consciousness that we have of our selves and how such meshes with that of another and one another and so on.
Thus this translates that we may someday legate our discord via a greater personal awareness and I suggest that there is nothing wrong with hoping that that be the case, it is not wrong to be positive in order to get through life, but more likely even as any type of self/mutual awareness grows so it is equally possible that the disparity will too grow in scope, for there is nothing narrow about the whole consciousness, subconsciousness and metaphysical, all narrowing down is a fictitious pretension for a tolerable and yet dangerous truth.
ricardo
Since we started with morality we shall attempt to keep on that bearing so that we don’t have to deal with eclectic conclusions and events, instead we will drive this one down the thin road that it inhabits. A great number of people, if not all, steer their lives based on some moral principle, there can be religious moral principles and there are patriotic moral principles and sometimes they can be mixed but equally they may operate wholly independent of one another, an example being: A patriot can kill to defend his country and that is an honorable and justified killing, a Christian by contrast ought not and shall not kill even in self defense, Jesus Christ opted not to defend himself against the Romans thus amply showing that it would be wrong to react in vengeance or self defense, and more displaying unusually high favoritism towards pacifism. Both the faithful and patriotic are acting on principles that are moral though they dictate here a different mode of action, it could equally be said that a patriot must display a considerable amount of valor, that is not to be a coward, and we can easily connect the soldier and Jesus here in same moral actions, for what Jesus did was substantially brave even as it imply letting himself get killed, and the patriot might kill but if he does it is in self defense which is both honorable and brave, thus the patriot honors the wishes of his mother country and Jesus honors the wishes of his father God.
The clear straight path of linearity in the context of moral behavior is what makes us love morality for if all humans would act according to the same moral guidelines they would then be predictable hence the reason why we give morality so much favor in daily existence and try to practice it or claim devout practice to it regardless of our true moral and subjective position. As with anything that enough people believe Morality itself acquires a third party mentality, that is an objective perspective, an independence from individuality is had when an aggregate critical mass of people believe it, this is because the mass appeal of morality creates an ephemeral but very real entity that acts in the interest of all and not in the interest of any given individual, thus the independence of morality is found in the fact that any belief system that acquires a mass following is equally and wonderfully able to hide its subjective origins in mass dynamic, that is to say its subjective benefits become impossible to discern, and thus act as if independent of personalized interest, you thus cannot see how the construct of a patriotic morality could possibly be dependent on some individual-subjective constructs, nor could you see how anyone that is willing to die for all of humanity could possibly care about himself first and foremost, the assumption is then that the Patriot and Jesus Christ, even as acting on behalf of the interests that they have personalized are in fact acting selflessly and honorably.
Thus you can see how a construct that is formally and fundamentally subjective i.e. morality becomes a subject that acquires a third party subjectivity, the construct of our shared belief. Now the third party subjective by virtue of its essence has to save and serve the many, thus its presume objectivity has to be limited and limiting in scope, thus the reason why any sort of modern day morality has 10 commandments, 10 bill of rights, 7 constitutional articles, these may well be very clear such as “thou shall not kill.” Very little possible room for interpretation there, it has positively no escape clause or loopholes, “thou shall not kill,” even mosquitoes are safe from the fly swatter with this one, however most people will refrain from taking it so literally certainly god did not mean though shall not kill mosquitoes, and wildlife hunters think that god wasn’t speaking on behalf of all species, it was a god of men speaking on behalf of men only, and then you get into more trouble but then god ate fish or didn’t he? The inherent point here is that the simplicity of belief and scope is mandated by the shared third party realism.
The reason for the narrow moral path is that not everyone can agree if the options available are many, humans like things to be in groupings of ten or less, and these groupings ought to have similarities so they don’t get too complex for comprehension, else their mass appeal will meander down many a dead ended alleys and compromise its third person status through divisional conspiracies, hence the reason that there have sprouted so many denominational versions of the original catholic church, Henry the 8th was able to interpret the moral semantic to allow for divorce, obviously it wasn’t narrow enough if someone as narrow minded as Henry could see an alternative whole church of England; further each division created by each denomination of the church is evidence that the original church was to wide in scope and thus it is being narrowed through denominational division to save the truth. This is why each new version of the old church, the Muslims, the protestants, the charismatic Christians, etc, can all claim that they are following a more accurate and genuine version of the faith, think Luther.
Thus we may conclude that narrowness of mission and thinness of creed is relevant in any and all functional third party structures that want to acquire mass appeal and promote an ambience of objectivity, further any overreaching concept will suffer divisional strife until it cannot be subdivided any further thus reaching the minutia of its truth.
Now while the following topic could be a whole other chapter or even a whole other book I and going to cover it here so that it remains narrow and thin, why would any truth want to be so simple? And just why is objectivity so relevant?
As the truth is simple so goes the answer: we already know that any truth in order to acquire mass appeal must have lots in common with the mass, but a truth must also be simple in order to remain the truth, that is to say that any truth in order to call its truth a truth must cater to something very deterministic and shortsighted, it cannot cater to complex and intricate matters as these will have a natural tendency to dwindle down the truth to insignificance, thus a truth must opine over that which the mass already has in common, and that means over the things which are already truth for the mass, the truth spoken is thus born after the truth is felt and its simplicity is inherent because it is an endemically, that is a commonly realized truth.
Objectivity itself is relevant because it allows us to construct a living environment composed of the simplest parts that we all have in common, thus you can blame any problem of communication and interaction on the fact that we are always connected through the urgings of our lowest common denominators. Wars, racism, moral quandaries fall into this category, the communality of the human species, one on one, one to many or many to many is held hostage by the fact that our consciousness hasn’t personalized the idea of tribe. Thus everyone prefers to think that they are different and special and this is what cancels out the tribe spirit, but the reason we do so has less to do with bad intentions than with a terrible happenstance, that is we don’t really know ourselves, our uniqueness in relationship to the rest of the species rest purely on our ignorance of ourselves, or our lack of personalized intuition of the communality of species, this even across species types, and thus the objective third party construct can only be objectified through the miserably little awareness, consciousness that we have of our selves and how such meshes with that of another and one another and so on.
Thus this translates that we may someday legate our discord via a greater personal awareness and I suggest that there is nothing wrong with hoping that that be the case, it is not wrong to be positive in order to get through life, but more likely even as any type of self/mutual awareness grows so it is equally possible that the disparity will too grow in scope, for there is nothing narrow about the whole consciousness, subconsciousness and metaphysical, all narrowing down is a fictitious pretension for a tolerable and yet dangerous truth.
ricardo
posted by Ricardo Correa at 2:10 PM
<< Home