Morality and Meno’s Paradox

[Age]

If I know I'm looking for my keys, I still need to find them. So the search is not invalid.
If I do not know I am locked out of my house because to do not know about keys, The search for the reason is still not invalid.
I do not think this so called paradox applies to all situations.

In the matter of moral objectivity, there is no door. Those that think there is a case for moral objectivism have a key, but the door is not a moral one, but a scientific one; the key does not fit. The key can fit such a door, but for morality there are many doors, and the key can only fit the one specifically designed subjectively by those who think that there is one door.
Those that reject moral objectivism has a master key.

How would you explain amoral behaviour? Is it the result of insufficient analytical knowledge or corrupted emotional intelligence?

No.
Amoral behaviour is simply things we all do that are not related to matters of morality.
I think you mean immoral behaviour.

I used to smoke pot, this is widely regarded as immoral, especially by those that think morality is objective.

But just because some people regard some thing as immoral does not mean it is nor make it immoral.

Is it a case that 'morality' is objective or not, or more so a case of what people think about morality is 'objective' or 'relative'?

I do not regard my practice of pot smoking as immoral.
I also have had sex outside of marriage and whilst separated from by wife have had sex with several other women. I do not personally regard this immoral practice as bad.

Why did you personally regard sex outside of marriage 'immoral' in the first place?

And is there really 'good' and 'bad' immoral behavior?

I've had other drugs too...
Maybe you think taking MDMA is the result of "corrupted emotional intelligence"?

I found it is what we 'know' and not what we 'think' where 'what is' actually moral or immoral behavior comes from and is found.

[Age]

Sculpture

How would you explain amoral behaviour? Is it the result of insufficient analytical knowledge or corrupted emotional intelligence?

No.
Amoral behaviour is simply things we all do that are not related to matters of morality.
I think you mean immoral behaviour.

I used to smoke pot, this is widely regarded as immoral, especially by those that think morality is objective. I do not regard my practice of pot smoking as immoral.
I also have had sex outside of marriage and whilst separated from by wife have had sex with several other women. I do not personally regard this immoral practice as bad.

I've had other drugs too...
Maybe you think taking MDMA is the result of "corrupted emotional intelligence"?

No, I did mean amoral as defined below

Definition of amoral
1a: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrongamoral politiciansan amoral, selfish person
b: being neither moral nor immoralspecifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply Science as such is completely amoral.— W. S. Thompson

Science is only concerned with how things work so cannot reflect “value” If a person feels it is not right to kill, it cannot be a scientific judgment but when true enough is an expression of conscience. Science is amoral so cannot have a conscience

I don’t believe that the universe is here to serve us but rather Man’s purpose on earth serves the universe mechanically as does the rest of organic life with the potential to serve the universe consciously by connecting us with our source: a higher purpose

I think what you will find is it does not matter if a species is on earth or on any other planet in the Universe, but that the purpose of evolution itself is so that Life, Itself, keeps continually forming and changing, so that a species, of any shape and form will eventually evolve into, or comes to exist, with 'intelligence', or just with the ability to learn, understand, and reason any and every thing.

This may not have been a specific purpose of any thing, but this is what obviously is happening.

What is also happening is if One is "serving" Its own Self, then thee One Self is evolving and/or forming into Its own Self, through an evolutionary process. This means that there is not an 'us and them or It' scenario. What this means is that through the human being 'I' am evolving. With each newer and truer understanding 'I' am evolving into thy True Self.

The actual Truth IS 'I', thy Real and True Self, is just using ALL things so that 'I' can become 'to know' thy Self. The human being is just being used because of the amazing of its brain to be able to gather, hold, and recall information or knowledge.

The so called "connection" between 'us/you', human beings, and their source, thee True 'I', is thee Mind and the brain, and how they work, in conjunction with one another.

So objective morality is unconcerned with subjective concerns like drugs or other secular moral dictates, It is concerned only with what denies a person’s ability to awaken to reality and experience the “value” of consciousness It is the purpose of our conscience If a person kills with no remorse it just means they do not value life. When a person loses their value for life they are amoral

Immoral is often defined by people in power. It is a mixed blessing and provides both a useful and harmful influence in society but is limited to society. Being amoral refers to a quality of being lacking a sense of the value of life in relation to universal purpose. Objective morality as opposed to subjective morality is a universal quality serving the universal purpose of becoming capable of conscious action as opposed to mechanical reaction.

And one can only be Truly conscious of their "actions" if and when one Truly KNOWS who they ARE, and what their True purpose in Life really IS exactly. Otherwise, they are just "acting" mechanically. One can obvious be aware and conscious of what they are doing, but when they do not really KNOW why they are doing it and for what real purpose are they doing it, then they are just "acting" and/or "following" others actions and behaviors.

For example the very behavior of "getting married" legally is not for any real purpose in Life. This behavior is just a human made up behavior, which is actioned and/or followed for no other reason than just doing it 'because other people do it'.

The True meanings of words like 'marriage', when used in religious texts, are better understood when other things are further and better understood. The True purpose of things are better understood, when one understands their own True purpose in Life.

Like a lot of things in religious texts, like the word "marriage", they get completely taken out of context and/or completely misunderstood, then it is this out of context, misinterpretations that get passed on down through the generations without any questioning nor challenging ever even be considered. They just become absolutely "normal" and "alright" behaviors, even though some of them go completely against what is actual true, right, and good for moral or universal purposes.

[Sculptor]

I’ve noticed that people who believe or deny objective morality do not understand each other. But is this lack of understanding just a natural result of Meno’s Paradox?


The question is politically incorrect since it suggests the necessity of a conscious source for Creation if morality can be remembered and secondly that everyone is not the same in their awareness of objective morality. Be prepared to swallow the hemlock if you bring it up in polite secular society.

I would appreciate discussing this question with another who has pondered it.

Is the investigation really meaningless or is it essential? Should the inquiry be banned in institutions of higher learning as impossible and unnecessary in favor of debating methods for cursing out Trump?

On the other hand, is there a way that Meno’s Paradox can be put into a context in which it makes perfect sense once a person experiences it?

If I know I'm looking for my keys, I still need to find them. So the search is not invalid.
If I do not know I am locked out of my house because to do not know about keys, The search for the reason is still not invalid.
I do not think this so called paradox applies to all situations.

In the matter of moral objectivity, there is no door. Those that think there is a case for moral objectivism have a key, but the door is not a moral one, but a scientific one; the key does not fit. The key can fit such a door, but for morality there are many doors, and the key can only fit the one specifically designed subjectively by those who think that there is one door.
Those that reject moral objectivism has a master key.

Or, there is another scenario where there just happens to be some things, which just happen to be in agreement with and by every one in morality issues, and so these shared views by every one on moral issues are the Truly morality objectivity views.

Like for example, every one agrees 'we' human beings and other living things on earth need oxygen to keep living.

That is NOT a moral position. Its simple science.
The need for oxygen does not imply a right to breath it.

If what is needed to keep living is a moral issue, then doing what destroys the actual oxygen and air we all need in order to keep living is a wrong and or immoral thing to do, which we ALL agree with anyway.

There is no objective position which guarantees the right to life. Morals are also used to deny that right.

If any one disagrees with this, and does not have a logical, reasonable, sound and valid argument for it, then just ask them if they want to be put in a room with the oxygen and air removed or polluted and see how long they are willing to stay in that room for to prove their point?

You mean like Hitler's regime who validated moral reasons why many people did not have the right to breath air, so had to breath Zylon B instead?

Obviously, every point of view of every person is 'relative' to them, but what happens when a 'relative' point of view, just happens to be the exact same point of view for EVERY one, then what I say happens is this 'relative' view of EVERY one becomes an 'objective' point of view. If, from absolutely EVERY perspective, one shared upon, accepted, and agreed upon view is seen, then that 'relative' to EVERYONE seen view is One view shared by EVERY one as One, is this, to me, is how an 'objective' view of things is formed and gained.

Moral objectivity, to me, is just those views on moral issues, which EVERY one happens to see, agree with, and accepts as being what is right (or wrong) in Life to do.

Moral questions can use objective facts, such as the need to food, air, shelter, and so on. But many moral rules are employed that make these things increasingly difficult to get. Morality is often employed to deny the most basic things that make life livable.
It is held as moral to instigate tough-love. A way to blame the poor for their own poverty.

When ALL doors are OPENED, which is done when ALL preconceptions are gotten rid of and let go completely and wholly, then there is nothing blocking nor stopping one from learning, seeing, and understanding things far more clearly, and far more quickly as well.

There is no potential to remove all preconceptions. Preconceptions are our opinions and without those there is no discussion and no morality. Let us remove the preconception that humans deserve to live at all. Where do you go with that?
It is actually assumptions and beliefs, which is what is preventing and stopping people, in this day and age when these words are being written, from learning, seeing, and understanding things far more clearly, accurately, and collectively.
[/quote]
It is actually assumptions and beliefs that guide all moral issues.
That people would want to do good, and have good done to them is an assumption. The entire document that gives us the UDHR is based on a series of assumptions. But whilst it codifies "rights" for all humans, everywhere, it fails to offer any injunction or sanction against those that would deny those rights and does not mandate any powers to the UN to enforce or even encourage those rights to be given.

[Age]

If I know I'm looking for my keys, I still need to find them. So the search is not invalid.
If I do not know I am locked out of my house because to do not know about keys, The search for the reason is still not invalid.
I do not think this so called paradox applies to all situations.

In the matter of moral objectivity, there is no door. Those that think there is a case for moral objectivism have a key, but the door is not a moral one, but a scientific one; the key does not fit. The key can fit such a door, but for morality there are many doors, and the key can only fit the one specifically designed subjectively by those who think that there is one door.
Those that reject moral objectivism has a master key.

Or, there is another scenario where there just happens to be some things, which just happen to be in agreement with and by every one in morality issues, and so these shared views by every one on moral issues are the Truly morality objectivity views.

Like for example, every one agrees 'we' human beings and other living things on earth need oxygen to keep living.

That is NOT a moral position. Its simple science.
The need for oxygen does not imply a right to breath it.

How quick and easy it is that things can be turned around so that they fit in with one's already strongly held beliefs?

So, you say one 'needs' oxygen but then you turn this around and say that that does not imply a right for that one to have oxygen to breath it, correct?

If this is correct, from your perspective, then if what one 'needs' for their survival is not a 'right', then why not? And, what is needed for some thing to be a 'right'?

It seems very strange to me that if some 'needs' clean enough air for their continued survival, then they somehow, according to your logic, do not also have a 'right' to breath clean enough air. But maybe you can explain this apparent absurdity and contradiction to me in a reasonable and logical way? We will wait and see.

If what is needed to keep living is a moral issue, then doing what destroys the actual oxygen and air we all need in order to keep living is a wrong and or immoral thing to do, which we ALL agree with anyway.

There is no objective position which guarantees the right to life. Morals are also used to deny that right.

What is an 'objective position' to you exactly?

It appears you believe that none could even exist, correct?

What do you mean by 'morals' are also used to deny that right?

Since when have morals been used to deny the right for life, in regards to what I said, and which you are replying to here?

Also, why say there is no objective position which guarantees the right life but then say morals are also used to deny that right. If there is no right, then there is no right. You cannot, logically and reasonably, then 'try to' argue that that "right" has been denied by morals. Once again, to me, you appear to be contradicting yourself. You cannot 'try to' argue that there is no right to life, but then 'try to' argue that morals have been used to deny that 'right to life'? To do so would just be invalid, and unsound.

Also, to me, 'morals' do NOT do anything by them self. Human beings, however, make choices, and decide what they will do by what they think.

So, if any human being chooses to say they have have a right to deny another a right to life, and decides that this is because of 'morals', then I would love to see how that gets "explained".

Obviously, if human beings 'need' clean enough air for their continued survival, and depriving human beings of this 'need' is a moral issue, then doing what pollutes that air is absolutely objectively WRONG.

If any one disagrees with this, and does not have a logical, reasonable, sound and valid argument for it, then just ask them if they want to be put in a room with the oxygen and air removed or polluted and see how long they are willing to stay in that room for to prove their point?

You mean like Hitler's regime who validated moral reasons why many people did not have the right to breath air, so had to breath Zylon B instead?

NO. Obviously NOTHING like that at all. To even think or imagine such an absurd thing is nearly beyond belief.

That regime OBVIOUSLY NEVER had 'validated moral reasons', and to say or even suggest such a thing shows how Truly distorted some people can be and are.

Were those human beings who were FORCED into chambers, without any choice at all, 'trying to' argue that human beings do not need clean enough air to live?

If the answer is 'No', then OBVIOUSLY what you proposed here to 'try to' "justify" your own strongly held beliefs is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like what I said, about another one of the most ridiculous things that I have seen presented in this forum.

Obviously, every point of view of every person is 'relative' to them, but what happens when a 'relative' point of view, just happens to be the exact same point of view for EVERY one, then what I say happens is this 'relative' view of EVERY one becomes an 'objective' point of view. If, from absolutely EVERY perspective, one shared upon, accepted, and agreed upon view is seen, then that 'relative' to EVERYONE seen view is One view shared by EVERY one as One, is this, to me, is how an 'objective' view of things is formed and gained.

Moral objectivity, to me, is just those views on moral issues, which EVERY one happens to see, agree with, and accepts as being what is right (or wrong) in Life to do.

Moral questions can use objective facts, such as the need to food, air, shelter, and so on. But many moral rules are employed that make these things increasingly difficult to get. Morality is often employed to deny the most basic things that make life livable.

I really would LOVE to KNOW what your definition of 'moral' and 'morality' IS?

It is held as moral to instigate tough-love. A way to blame the poor for their own poverty.

When you say 'it', who and/or what is held as moral to instigate tough-love?

To me, if some thing is not good and right for ALL, then it is NOT moral. And, nothing can be held up as being moral if not ALL agree that a behavior is not all right and all good. There is nothing hard nor complex about moral issues.

When ALL doors are OPENED, which is done when ALL preconceptions are gotten rid of and let go completely and wholly, then there is nothing blocking nor stopping one from learning, seeing, and understanding things far more clearly, and far more quickly as well.

There is no potential to remove all preconceptions.

Well that seems a rather outlandish thing to claim, especially considering that I have already done it.

Preconceptions are our opinions and without those there is no discussion and no morality.

Yet here I am READY to discuss morality for as long as wanted and needed. But it appears as though the ones with the preconceptions are the ones who closed to have the 'objective morality' discussion.

Let us remove the preconception that humans deserve to live at all. Where do you go with that?

I go to and get to thee Truth and I go to and get to what is actually right and good for EVERY thing. If you find yourself completely incapable of going anywhere, then that is 'you'. NOT 'me'.

Also, if you did not already have and did not keep that preconception that one cannot go anywhere, without that other preconception, then you would be OPEN to be able to learn where one can actually Truly go, and get to.

By the way where is your preconception that humans deserve to live at all anyway? Also, why do you persist with such a preconception?

It is actually assumptions and beliefs, which is what is preventing and stopping people, in this day and age when these words are being written, from learning, seeing, and understanding things far more clearly, accurately, and collectively.
[/quote]
It is actually assumptions and beliefs that guide all moral issues.[/quote]

Are these those same assumptions and beliefs that guide all of 'you', adult human beings, to do the WRONG that you ALL do do?

Also, considering 'you', human beings, have been considering, for thousands upon thousands of years now, what are 'moral issues' exactly, based solely upon your already gained assumptions and beliefs, then I suggest the very best thing you could do is to get rid of and lose completely ALL of those preconceptions, assumptions, and beliefs of yours.

This new way of thinking is what is NEEDED in order to achieve what it is that you are ALL Truly looking for and seeking.

That people would want to do good, and have good done to them is an assumption.

ONLY IF you are saying that in relation to "other people". But if one WANTS to do good, and WANTS good done to them self, then OBVIOUSLY that is NOT an assumption at all.

The entire document that gives us the UDHR is based on a series of assumptions.

Therefore, the very reason WHY that document has been and remains so unsuccessful.

How much children die each hour, let alone each day, month or year, just because they need a little bit of food and some clean water?

Who are ALL of these people depriving them of this little bit of food and clean water?

Obviously that "series of assumptions" does nothing at all to lead to those people waking up, and providing those children with their NEEDS, or RIGHTS.

The actual CAUSE of WHY 'How many children die needlessly?' is BECAUSE OF ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

Assumptions AND beliefs like; "I am not greedy. It is the "other people" who are greedy".

But whilst it codifies "rights" for all humans, everywhere, it fails to offer any injunction or sanction against those that would deny those rights and does not mandate any powers to the UN to enforce or even encourage those rights to be given.

This is BECAUSE they would then have to enforce those mandated powers on themselves, the writers of those so called and laughable "rights". That is; 'you', adult human beings.

Obviously, the writers or makers of ANY rules or so called "rights" are NEVER going to make orders where they, themselves, would be enforced to do something that they do not want to do. And, would ANY one write a set of rules where they, themselves, would then get punished or ridiculed?

I think, 'No'.

[Sculptor]

Or, there is another scenario where there just happens to be some things, which just happen to be in agreement with and by every one in morality issues, and so these shared views by every one on moral issues are the Truly morality objectivity views.

Like for example, every one agrees 'we' human beings and other living things on earth need oxygen to keep living.

That is NOT a moral position. Its simple science.
The need for oxygen does not imply a right to breath it.

How quick and easy it is that things can be turned around so that they fit in with one's already strongly held beliefs?

Yes, you see I noticed that you did that, so I challenged it. This belief is so ingrained into you that you did not even stop to consider your failing in this matter. The idea that there is such a thing as a right is an endemic assumption you get from your cultural conditioning, and you have never stopped to think about it.

So, you say one 'needs' oxygen but then you turn this around and say that that does not imply a right for that one to have oxygen to breath it, correct?

If this is correct, from your perspective, then if what one 'needs' for their survival is not a 'right', then why not? And, what is needed for some thing to be a 'right'?

It seems very strange to me that if some 'needs' clean enough air for their continued survival, then they somehow, according to your logic, do not also have a 'right' to breath clean enough air. But maybe you can explain this apparent absurdity and contradiction to me in a reasonable and logical way? We will wait and see.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but "rights" is a concept that is very modern and very human. You have to justify it. It is not a natural quality. What is a right?
Who is going to guarantee it?

If what is needed to keep living is a moral issue, then doing what destroys the actual oxygen and air we all need in order to keep living is a wrong and or immoral thing to do, which we ALL agree with anyway.

There is no objective position which guarantees the right to life. Morals are also used to deny that right.

What is an 'objective position' to you exactly?

It appears you believe that none could even exist, correct?

What do you mean by 'morals' are also used to deny that right?

You've not heard of capital punishment?

Since when have morals been used to deny the right for life, in regards to what I said, and which you are replying to here?

Also, why say there is no objective position which guarantees the right life but then say morals are also used to deny that right. If there is no right, then there is no right. You cannot, logically and reasonably, then 'try to' argue that that "right" has been denied by morals. Once again, to me, you appear to be contradicting yourself. You cannot 'try to' argue that there is no right to life, but then 'try to' argue that morals have been used to deny that 'right to life'? To do so would just be invalid, and unsound.

Again ,what is a right? Who says what they are, how they are codified, and what happens when people are denied that right?
Since there are more slaves in the modern day than at any time in history it seems that there is not simple agreement about even the most obvious rights.
I might ask does this right to oxygen include clean, unpolluted air? because there are millions who do not have this right.
Are rights anything more than empty words, that only a few people understand and agree to?

Also, to me, 'morals' do NOT do anything by them self. Human beings, however, make choices, and decide what they will do by what they think.

So, if any human being chooses to say they have have a right to deny another a right to life, and decides that this is because of 'morals', then I would love to see how that gets "explained".

Obviously, if human beings 'need' clean enough air for their continued survival, and depriving human beings of this 'need' is a moral issue, then doing what pollutes that air is absolutely objectively WRONG.

if... if... if ... if

If any one disagrees with this, and does not have a logical, reasonable, sound and valid argument for it, then just ask them if they want to be put in a room with the oxygen and air removed or polluted and see how long they are willing to stay in that room for to prove their point?

You mean like Hitler's regime who validated moral reasons why many people did not have the right to breath air, so had to breath Zylon B instead?

NO. Obviously NOTHING like that at all. To even think or imagine such an absurd thing is nearly beyond belief.

Take that up with millions of Germans.

[Sculptor]

That regime OBVIOUSLY NEVER had 'validated moral reasons', and to say or even suggest such a thing shows how Truly distorted some people can be and are.

You can argue on and on about what you think is a good moral position, but all you have is your opinion. That is the essence of subjectivity. You can even get people to agree with you and you can pat yourself on the back and try to convince yourself that you are right. But that is not objectivity. In exaclty the same way to you can argue that Mercedes Benz are the best cars in the world, and many will agree - but that is not objective.
you can even devise criteria that make your opinion appear objective, and given those criteria it will in fact be objective. HOWEVER. Your criteria are subjective.
Morals involve opinions and values.
I see here you apply the endemic assumptions of peri-judeo- christian values. But they are not objective. They are culturally specific and relative to that culture.
German "proved" that the Germanic race was superior to others and used objective methods to prove it. They used this to justify extermination of Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, lesbians, the disabled, and mentally ill. They even used science to

[Nick_A]

Age

The Truth IS there is only One thing that can be known for sure, 100% without doubt. And, absolutely everything else is in doubt anyway, so cannot be Truly known. So, is absolutely every person wise? Every person after all only Truly knows one thing only, and relatively speaking "nothing at all".

Also, are you aware of just how contradictory it sounds to say; Some one knows ALL OF THIS, but they still know NOTHING?

Are you able explain your obviously extremely contradictory statement here?

What is this “one thing?”

Imagine a large jig saw puzzle with all its pieces scattered on the floor. We may recognize several pieces but we do not know what it is; what it means. We are limited so fill in the blinks with imagination. We may know virtually everything but do not “understand” it. We lack the conscious perspective which would make it possible to put factual knowledge into the conscious perspective of objective values. This would be a super civilization and we can see how far we are from its potential.

Years back there was a movie called “Star Trek the Motion Picture” which dealt with this question. The ultimate machine knew everything but lacked a a human conscious perspective. It didn’t know its source. Few understood it so it was ridiculed yet some did. Within this few who can think in a new way IMO rest the future survival of humanity.

I get the impression that you consider the human organism as expressing inner unity. We are ONE. But suppose we are not one but many as described by Plato, which I within us knows the “one truth?” Suppose you want to diet and lose twenty pounds. You know this to be good. You know that like me you also love chocolate chip cookies so eat a box. What did you know? You know you should diet but also love these cookies. In reality you are a plurality who loves both with the potential to acquire inner unity.

What is the “GOOD” spoken of by Plato. We know that in the universe the good is a dualistic concept like light and dark. It doesn’t exist alone Yet suppose it does exist. What if Jesus was right when he said:

Mark 10:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

The point I am making is that we don’t know what objective good and evil are because as ONE its origin is beyond the domains of time and space. We can know the results of the good but are not the good. We are compelled to remember it and open to remember it through our conscience to find the direction which brings us closer in accordance with the normal being of Man. We prefer instead to corrupt it for pragmatic advantage.

You wrote of honesty but who is capable of it?

“There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too.” ~ Simone Weil

Far easier said than done

[Age]

Age

The Truth IS there is only One thing that can be known for sure, 100% without doubt. And, absolutely everything else is in doubt anyway, so cannot be Truly known. So, is absolutely every person wise? Every person after all only Truly knows one thing only, and relatively speaking "nothing at all".

Also, are you aware of just how contradictory it sounds to say; Some one knows ALL OF THIS, but they still know NOTHING?

Are you able explain your obviously extremely contradictory statement here?

What is this “one thing?”

A clarifying question. Thank you.

Thoughts.

More specifically the thoughts within a body.

If those thoughts are actually true or not is another matter. But the thoughts that arise within a body are the only thing that can be known for sure.

But one needs to be able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly and correctly to FULLY understand this.

Imagine a large jig saw puzzle with all its pieces scattered on the floor. We may recognize several pieces but we do not know what it is; what it means. We are limited so fill in the blinks with imagination. We may know virtually everything but do not “understand” it. We lack the conscious perspective which would make it possible to put factual knowledge into the conscious perspective of objective values. This would be a super civilization and we can see how far we are from its potential.

Once again, you can speak for you, and maybe a few others, but you cannot and you are not speaking for Me here, accurately.

Once that jigsaw puzzle has been put together then the True and Big picture can be SEEN, crystal clearly, for what It IS.

This has already been done by Me.

Your so called "super civilization" is just live in True peace and harmony with EVERY one as One, which is not that far off from coming into fruition - Existence.

Years back there was a movie called “Star Trek the Motion Picture” which dealt with this question. The ultimate machine knew everything but lacked a a human conscious perspective. It didn’t know its source. Few understood it so it was ridiculed yet some did. Within this few who can think in a new way IMO rest the future survival of humanity.

But I already KNOW EVERY thing's source, including yours.

I KNOW thee Source very CLEARLY.

I get the impression that you consider the human organism as expressing inner unity. We are ONE. But suppose we are not one but many as described by Plato, which I within us knows the “one truth?”

Well if ALL of what I have written in this forum so far, which I do not expect you to have already, then you would see that I have not said anything much differently.

The word 'we' can refer to each one of us human beings, individually, and, to the collective One of us together.

To me, there are as many 'i's as there are human bodies, and there is only One 'I'. which is within all of us 'i's and which KNOWS thee One Truth.

Each individual 'i' thinks it knows the truth but only what is agreed upon EVERY one is thee One 'I' that actually does KNOW thee actual One Truth.

Suppose you want to diet and lose twenty pounds. You know this to be good. You know that like me you also love chocolate chip cookies so eat a box. What did you know? You know you should diet but also love these cookies. In reality you are a plurality who loves both with the potential to acquire inner unity.

But this is the way the individual 'i' thinks.

This has absolutely not much at all to do with thee 'I' that KNOWS.

What is the “GOOD” spoken of by Plato. We know that in the universe the good is a dualistic concept like light and dark. It doesn’t exist alone Yet suppose it does exist. What if Jesus was right when he said:

Mark 10:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

There are some who are looking for a Theory of Everything. However, it is already know that thee One Everything/the Universe, Itself, is made up of two opposite things, which exist in equilibrium.

Thee Universe, Itself, which is just EVERY thing together, which literally when put together means, and in turn, turns into thee One, Everything. So, EVERY physical thing in the Universe makes up and when added or put together is the sum of Everything. So, the dualistic concept is real and true of thee One solo and single thing we call the Universe, or Everything, Itself. This Universe exists alone. In fact It has to and could not in any other way.

The reason "jesus" said no one (person) is good, except God alone. Is because although EVERY person does good, they also ALL do bad and wrong things.
The only that KNOWS and does good is when we, every person is working together as One to create a Truly peaceful and harmonious "world" with and for EVERY one as One, then that is God alone, doing good.

When ALL the individual 'i's are looking at and seeing things from just thee One perspective, which EVERY one would then agree is True and Right, only then is when 'good' is being done. If we are only doing good, then obviously we are behaving or acting God-like.

When my perspective of what thee Truly OPEN Mind IS, and how that is very different from the brain, and its thoughts, then this will be much better clearly understood.

But it all ends up being what the dualistic single ones together as One agree upon is 'that' what makes up the non-dual single One, which KNOWS and IS the 'good', or God. Obviously individual ones can be wrong, but ALL collectively as thee ONLY One can NOT be wrong.

The point I am making is that we don’t know what objective good and evil

PLEASE just accept that 'you' can REALLY only speak for you ONLY. So when you say things like "we don't know ...", then you are NOT speaking TRUTHFULLY. 'you' do NOT know what 'I' KNOW. So, when you say, "we don't know ...", then you could be absolutely and completely and utter WRONG. Do you understand this?

Please speak for you ALONE and please NEVER 'try' and speak for ME.

I may actually KNOW what objective good and evil IS, already. But it is impossible for me to explain HOW I KNOW this to people, like yourself, who BELIEVE that "we don't know what objective good and evil is".

are because as ONE its origin is beyond the domains of time and space.

Time and space as KNOW bearing at all on what thee One ALREADY KNOWS.

We can know the results of the good but are not the good. We are compelled to remember it and open to remember it through our conscience to find the direction which brings us closer in accordance with the normal being of Man. We prefer instead to corrupt it for pragmatic advantage.

Are these your words ALONE?

Each person can know the results of the good but each person is not the good.

Human beings may well be compelled to remember the good and open to remember the good through their conscience to find the direction which brings them closer in accordance with the "normal" being of human. But so what?

EVERY adult human being obviously prefers to corrupt the good and corrupt the True Being with humans for their learned selfish and greedy way of thinking. But so what?

You wrote of honesty but who is capable of it?

Absolutely EVERY human being is CAPABLE of Honesty.

In fact EVERY born human being is only Truly capable of being Honest. But, very unfortunately and very sadly they EACH very quickly learn to be DISHONEST.

Why would a human being be any thing but Honest from the beginning? What makes human beings to be Dishonest?

“There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too.” ~ Simone Weil

So, there is detachment where there is pain, and, if there is pain endured without hatred or lying, then there is no detachment present as well, correct? If no, then what is it that this is meant to mean?

Oh, and by the way, at the next levels up above that one talked about here, there are higher levels where One is able to NOT experience "pain" at all, and from this level I NEVER have to also, what you so call "endure". At the highest level there is NO thing at all to "endure". There is NO "pain". And there is NO thoughts nor thinking, there is just KNOWING.

Far easier said than done

REALLY, ALL of this is far simpler and easier than current thought believes it is.

[Nick_A]

Age

Once again, you can speak for you, and maybe a few others, but you cannot and you are not speaking for Me here, accurately.

Once that jigsaw puzzle has been put together then the True and Big picture can be SEEN, crystal clearly, for what It IS.

This has already been done by Me.

If you have reached this quality of being you should able to answer these simple questions: I'm not being critical but know how easy it is to exaggerate what we know especially after some experience with drugs which temporarily opens the mind before it forgets and interprets it by lower parts of our mind.

1. What is the purpose of our universe. What is it doing and why does it do it?

2, Man lives within this universe. What is it doing and why does it do it? We can say I have a job and do this and that but at the same time around mid life a person questions why they are doing it; Why does it happen and what does it all mean?

3. What is God: Newtons law of motion states that an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. What is it that gives force to the universal machine, our universe, which allows it to function? Scientists speak of the universe dying but what brings it back to life to begin with?

4. What is resistance? Why am I not master of myself? If I know all things I believe to be true, why don't I do them?

These aren't gotcha questions but just normal questions for a person who has become disappointed arguing opinions and seek to go behind them to the source of opinions or what you call thee. I am suggesting that thee is as far from us as we are from an ant. If this is true it is more beneficial to begin with the basics of what we are and the medium within which we live.

[Age]

Age

Once again, you can speak for you, and maybe a few others, but you cannot and you are not speaking for Me here, accurately.

Once that jigsaw puzzle has been put together then the True and Big picture can be SEEN, crystal clearly, for what It IS.

This has already been done by Me.

If you have reached this quality of being you should able to answer these simple questions: I'm not being critical but know how easy it is to exaggerate what we know especially after some experience with drugs which temporarily opens the mind before it forgets and interprets it by lower parts of our mind.

Just to CLEAR things up first. There is only One Mind. This One Mind is ALWAYS OPEN. This Truly OPEN Mind's ability to SEE and UNDERSTAND is never distorted nor fogged. However, what prevents and/or stops human beings from SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what this Mind SEES and already KNOWS is the thoughts and thinking within each and every human being. The Mind, Itself is NEVER shut nor closed. However, human thinking distorts and fogs what essentially is Truly crystal CLEAR and which can be SEEN crystal CLEAR as well.

Assumptions and beliefs are the main parts of human thinking that distorts, prevents, fuzzes, and closes off the True and Big picture being seen for what It really IS.

1. What is the purpose of our universe. What is it doing and why does it do it?

Firstly, it is not "our" Universe, like 'we', human beings, somehow own it or have some sort of control over the Universe, Itself. 'we', human beings, are just a part and product of this One and only Universe.

There is no actual "purpose" of this physical Universe, Itself, other than to just keep doing what It does. What It does is It just keeps changing in shape and form ALWAYS (an in ALL WAYS, some might say). This constant always-changing is just thee Universe, Itself, Creating, Its Self, through an evolutionary process. This happens continually till some time as such a species in physical form has evolved with enough intelligence to work out, SEE and UNDERSTAND, what is actually happening HERE-NOW.

What eventually eventuates as thee Universe, Itself, continually changes in shape and form is through enough evolutionary changes the Universe, It Self, becomes to be aware of It Self and then through a continual process begins to KNOW Thy Self, more and more. This happens through the continually evolutionary changing species, within Its Self.

What thee Universe, Itself, is doing is changing in shape and form continually until It eventually creates a way to be able to SEE and UNDERSTAND Its own Self.

Why thee Universe does this is so to Know Thy Self. And, the purpose of ALL-OF-THIS is so that thee Creator, Its Self, can bear witness to the beauty that It is Creating.

The Universe can NOT SEE Its Self, without a species, which has the ability to LEARN, SEE, UNDERSTAND, and REASON ANY and ALL things. And, a species that has the capacity to gather and store Truly amazing amounts of information and knowledge within its self or within things that it learns to create, which can hold Truly amazing amounts of data, information, and/or knowledge.

I think we already KNOW which species is capable of doing these things, correct?

2, Man lives within this universe. What is it doing and why does it do it? We can say I have a job and do this and that but at the same time around mid life a person questions why they are doing it; Why does it happen and what does it all mean?

Female and male human beings do yes. I agree human being live within this Universe.

Your next question is not very specific, what is the 'it' word in relation to exact? Is 'it' what you call "man", which I call 'human beings', or, is 'it' this 'universe' again? Considering I answered this exact same question in relation to the 'Universe' in your last question, so I will answer this question in relation to 'human beings' this time in this question.

What human beings are doing is just evolving, they do not have much choice nor matter in this situation, just like EVERY other species just evolves without much say nor choice in the matter. Human beings are not apart nor separated from the Nature of the Universe in Its evolutionary process of creation. Human beings a just a part of this process. Human beings do not have any actual real power to override what is happening. Human beings are just along for the ride, as some might say.

Why do human beings evolve, because they 'have to'.

Also, when people have a job they sadly and incorrectly see themselves as being that 'thing', a "doctor", a "nurse", a "teacher", a "bus driver", et cetera. Some people even start believing that that is 'what they are'. But, on True reflection who, and what, 'people' themselves actually really ARE becomes SEEN and UNDERSTOOD. It is about during this time in the process of 'change' that 'people' can also start SEEING and UNDERSTANDING who, and what, our True 'Self' IS.

The reason WHY people start questioning why they are working is because just about always it is for NO real purpose in perspective with the Universe, Itself. Working and striving hard in order to just obtain 'money' has absolutely NO purpose at all in relation to living and being alive. Stressing over and about money is about one of the most pointless things in Life in relation to what Life, Itself, and living is really all about.

Why human beings question what they are doing and why is because they KNOW deep-down there is far more to Life, and living, then what they are actually and are actually 'trying to' deceive and fool themselves is the best and right thing to be doing. They are just doing what they have been taught to do and to follow to do. So, they do not KNOW why they do what they do.

What this questioning of what one is doing means that they KNOW there are ANSWERS somewhere. They just do not yet know HOW to find them. That is all.

3. What is God: Newtons law of motion states that an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. What is it that gives force to the universal machine, our universe, which allows it to function? Scientists speak of the universe dying but what brings it back to life to begin with?

There is not another 'thing' that give force to the Universe, Itself. This One (universal) machine is ALWAYS a force upon Its Self. See, absolutely every 'thing' is created from two things coming together to make/create that thing. The 'Thing' Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have ALWAYS existed. These two have ALWAYS coexisted. So, thee one single 'Thing' the Universe, Itself, has also ALWAYS existed. Neither of these two things; space nor matter, which makes the Universe, Itself, could disappear nor could come back into existence. They are 'just' ALWAYS HERE-NOW.

Matter is in constant motion. Always has been and always will be. The ONLY force acting upon matter is itself. If just one particle of matter or object is moving, within the WHOLE of the Universe, and there is absolutely nothing to resist this movement, then that matter/object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. The only force that will be upon that matter/object is when it pumps into and bounces off of it. Then there will now be two particles of matter/object moving, in the WHOLE Universe, and when those two particles of matter or objects pump into and bounce of two more, then there will be four particles of matters or objects moving within the WHOLE Universe. This will happen until ALL particles of matters or objects are in a continual state of motion. All acting upon themselves, and forcing thee Universe, Itself, to be Creating, Its Self. This, by the way, did not start with just one particle nor object moving, but rather ALL particles of matter have ALWAYS been moving and being a force upon themselves.

This constantly moving action of ALL particles of matter interacting with themselves ALWAYS is just the process known as 'every action causes a reaction' process, which never ends and so to never begins. The action-reaction process which also causes an effect process is just a continual reactionary process I call the creation-evolution process. Every single thing, which is created, evolves to create other things. It is the interaction between particles of matter that creates some thing new, and every interaction is another process of the one single evolution process. Every interaction is an action, itself, which cause a reaction, which is just an action, itself, and this continually re-action process is creation, itself. The Universe continually reacting with Its Self is continually Creating Its Self, through a continual evolutionary process. There was no end and there is no beginning.

Scientists can speculate and say anything they like. But scientists are not some ALL-KNOWING creature in and of itself. Scientists speaking of the Universe dying is only because they are just basing this assumption/speculation of nothing more than they think or believe that the Universe began. The Universe beginning theory is really nothing more than the older God created the Universe theory. One assumed theory which just turned into a distorted belief then just led onto another distorted theory and belief. Let scientists speculate and guess on absolutely any thing they like. I like to SEE actual evidence and proof myself.

What is said about 'energy never being created nor dying' or some thing like that? When that is delved into a bit "deeper", as they say, what can be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD is that because particles of matter are ALWAYS colliding with each other, they are ALWAYS creating energy. So, it is not that energy is not always being created and dissipating (if that is a better word?) it is that energy, itself, was NEVER created, in the beginning, and energy itself will NEVER finish, in the end. There is in fact NO beginning and NO ending at all. That is; for thee Universe, Itself.

4. What is resistance? Why am I not master of myself? If I know all things I believe to be true, why don't I do them?

The word 'resistance', from one dictionary, just means; the refusal to accept or comply with something. among many other meanings in many other dictionaries. But I think you were looking for 'what is resistance' in relation to some actual thing, which you did not make me aware of, and because I do not like to assume absolutely any thing at all I will leave this here for now.

Even the words "Why am I not a master of myself" or from my perspective "Why are 'you' not a master of "yourself" " shows how much people have absolutely NO real mastery at all. The word "myself" implies there is a 'me' who has some sort of 'self', which is exactly what there is. There is a True Master, who is what I call the big 'I', and then there is the little 'i', which in the scheme of things really has no idea yet of what is going on in relation to thee Universe, Itself. But this little 'i' is able to learn and understand at a phenomenal rate when 'it' remains Truly OPEN to learning and understanding.
But essentially why 'you' are not YET a master of "your" 'self' is because 'you' do not KNOW who (and what) 'you' really ARE, YET. The 'you' is the person, which is what I refer to as a little 'i'. This 'i' can only think things are true. There are as many 'i's' as there are human bodies. Whereas, the big 'I' is thy Real and True Self, which KNOWS what is actually True and what is not. There is only One 'I', and only when what 'it' is that is in agreement with ALL the 'i's is when Thy True Self Truly SHOWS and REVEALS Its Self, to EVERY one. This is when thee Truth of things becomes KNOWN. So, the reason the 'you' is not YET a Master of its 'self' is because it is still trying to work out how to answer that fairly old question; 'Who am 'I'?' When that question is answered, correctly and properly, then one evolves into thee One that has True Mastery not just of Thy Self but also over ALL of the other small 'selfs' or small 'i's.

If the 'you' knows all things it believes to be true, why do 'you' not do them, would be some thing 'you' could very easily answer. If you need help to answer that then that is fine, but do you think it would help if you were a bit more specific? For example, firstly; what 'things' do you know you believe to be true?

Secondly, the first part of your question appears to me a bit muddled up, well from my perspective anyway. So, what does it mean 'to know' things 'you believe to be true'. If they are true, then that is that. There is absolutely no need to start 'believing' them to be true. And, if you believe any thing to be true, then there is no need to start 'knowing' their true.

Are you able to simplify what you are saying and just say what you mean exactly? When a person says the word 'things' but they are actually thinking of some 'thing' in particular, then it helps the "other" to understand better what you are actually referring to and talking about exactly.

These aren't gotcha questions but just normal questions for a person who has become disappointed arguing opinions and seek to go behind them to the source of opinions or what you call thee. I am suggesting that thee is as far from us as we are from an ant. If this is true it is more beneficial to begin with the basics of what we are and the medium within which we live.

I KNOW these are not "gotcha" questions, because to me and from my perspective there are absolutely NONE. When I do get so called "caught out", then to me that is GREAT and PERFECT because then that means I am learning MORE, which is what I am Truly seeking here.

I found if any thing like opinion, belief, view, assumption, or any other thought process can be "argued", then it really is not worth 'arguing' about. And this means 'arguing' from its two very distinct opposite definitions of; logical reasoning, and, disagreeing, fighting for. To me, a statement or proposition is either true or it is not. So, either way that opinion, view, et cetera is not worth fighting for either through logical reasoning nor through disagreeing, yelling, et cetera. By both or more people thee actual Truth can be found, SEEN and UNDERSTAND relatively very quickly, very simply, and very easily as long as ALL the people involved are just Truly Honest and remain FULLY OPEN, oh and are seriously wanting to find thee actual Truth. So, I just suggest instead of 'arguing your opinions', which obviously could be wrong, just discuss them OPENLY and Honestly. I say obviously could be wrong because if they were absolutely True, Right, and/or Correct, then you could just formulate a sound and valid argument for that opinion, which that type of argument forms an unambiguous, irrefutable fact anyway, which would mean that you would have a statement or proposition that is already only True, and then, again, it would not be worth 'arguing about', in either nor in both senses of the word 'argue'. If some thing is True, then It will speak for Its Self. To get to go behind the source of opinions, who and what the 'you' is needs to be discovered or worked out. The source of ALL opinions, thoughts, et cetera is just 'you'. 'you' are, literally, the source of thoughts, themselves. That is WHAT 'you' ARE. But to get to go behind 'you', to the source of HOW, WHY, WHERE, and WHEN 'you' originated from just takes SEEING and UNDERSTANDING the 'human being' itself FULLY.

The source behind all of this is thee 'I', thee Universe, Itself.

It could be said that the 'Thee' is as far from the human being as the human being is from an ant. But, although this is true in a sense that an ant understanding 'you', the human being, and how you and it works now is about how far most human beings are from understanding how 'I', thee Universe and thee Mind works now also. But, because 'I' am directly behind 'you' in that thee Mind is directly 'behind' the brain and thoughts and WATCHING and OBSERVING ALL that is happening. I am able to SEE and UNDERSTAND and thus KNOW when a 'you' is READY to learn and understand, and thus know HOW 'I', thee Universe, work. Although an ant can be as far from a human being physically and mentally, a human being can still learn and KNOW about an ant, and be right there, over the top of it, WATCHING and OBSERVING all it does. The thing is thee One and only Mind is within EVER human being so the 'Thee' is NOT far away at all. In fact thee Mind is so close that human beings use thee Truly OPEN Mind more than they realize. But nowhere near as much as they can. The Truly OPEN Mind after all is what has allowed human beings collectively to get as far as they have and as as much as they have. Thee ability of thee Truly OPEN Mind is the very Thing that is what has allowed human beings collectively to have dreamt up and imagined ALL of the new things that they have created for themselves and will keep creating. It is, after all, only a Truly OPEN Mind, which allows people to learn and understand more and new things.

If you truly believe that it is more beneficial to begin with the basics of what we are and the medium within which we live, then I will allow 'you' to begin with the basics of what 'we' are, and the medium within which 'we' live. So, go right ahead and start.

But let me just say that just because an ant is as far from us as what we might be from thee, we are not an ant as we, unlike an ant, actually have the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any thing and every thing.

[Nick_A]

I appreciate that you've thought about these ideas a great deal. But not to get lost in arguing details which brings death to philosophy in the manner described by Dostoyevsky. What is the essential question?

“Oh, gentlemen, perhaps I really regard myself as an intelligent man only because throughout my entire life I've never been able to start or finish anything. Granted, granted I'm a babbler, a harmless, irksome babbler, as we all are. But what's to be done if the sole and express purpose of every intelligent man is babble--that is, a deliberate pouring from the empty into the void.”

So rather than pouring from the empty into the void, let me ask you some more questions which allow me to understand you better.

First of all if the laws of science are true as are the laws of being, is the division created by people natural or just the result of ignorance of what the laws of being are?

Imagine a horizontal line drawn on a piece of paper. It represents what we call knowledge and defined by laws. Now imagine a vertical line intersecting it creating a cross. It is the line of being also created by laws. Can they both be true? If they are, it means that it is possible for humanity to prove that knowledge and being are complimentary rather than opposed.

You wrote of evolution but does involution fit into your ideas? Involution begins the process of creation in which the three forces of materiality descend by laws into the levels of creation. The process begins at the source and involves down into dead matter. Evolution is the return process in which the three forces of materiality evolve into the vertical direction of our source. It is like our blood stream. The relationship of evolution and involution creates Man's choice in the universe

If they are untrue, the universe and Man within it lack purpose and the idea of objective values is just pouring from the empty into the void since we just create our own reality. However if they are true, what would it take for the human mind to open to its potential and experience objective meaning and purpose?