Morality as a Process of Transformation Towards Value

[Eodnhoj7]

If there is a moral code than there are immoral actions that allow moral actions to be distinct as moral actions....thus morality requires immorality.

If there is no morality than any action goes as anything is justified...thus immorality justifies morality.

However, on another note, if anything is justified than justification ceases to have meaning, and hence a perceivable existence as no meaning is no transformation and no transformation is no being, thus leaving no sense of justification for anything.

If nothing is justifiable than morality can occur for no real reason and yet require justification thus making it a process of contradiction than manifests the same immorality that makes morality as distinct.

This interplay between moral and immoral values and actions results in less of a strict dichotomy oriented approach to how to exist and rather a process of transformation where morality is a process of change towards a given value or the act of valuing.

[Impenitent]

a thing requires it's opposite

thing

opposite

therefore value

-Imp

[popeye1945]

Morality is subjective sentiments expressed as a system of codes of behaviour. Its seed is identifying oneself with that of others, and thus compassion arises in an expanded concept of the self, which translates into a moral system. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and as a meaning, morality is of necessity a subjective intellectual property defined by self-interest

[Eodnhoj7]

Morality is subjective sentiments expressed as a system of codes of behaviour. Its seed is identifying oneself with that of others, and thus compassion arises in an expanded concept of the self, which translates into a moral system. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and as a meaning, morality is of necessity a subjective intellectual property defined by self-interest

A system that guides towards the achievement of value.

[popeye1945]

Morality is subjective sentiments expressed as a system of codes of behaviour. Its seed is identifying oneself with that of others, and thus compassion arises in an expanded concept of the self, which translates into a moral system. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and as a meaning, morality is of necessity a subjective intellectual property defined by self-interest

A system that guides towards the achievement of value.

A system that has as its essence self-interest, the survival and well-being of the collective self or society.

[Eodnhoj7]

Morality is subjective sentiments expressed as a system of codes of behaviour. Its seed is identifying oneself with that of others, and thus compassion arises in an expanded concept of the self, which translates into a moral system. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and as a meaning, morality is of necessity a subjective intellectual property defined by self-interest

A system that guides towards the achievement of value.

A system that has as its essence self-interest, the survival and well-being of the collective self or society.

The essence of human consciousness is the distinction of value.

[popeye1945]

A system that guides towards the achievement of value.

A system that has as its essence self-interest, the survival and well-being of the collective self or society.

The essence of human consciousness is the distinction of value.

The essence of human consciousness is experience and the understanding of that experience, which then gives the organism a meaning or a measure.

[Eodnhoj7]

A system that has as its essence self-interest, the survival and well-being of the collective self or society.

The essence of human consciousness is the distinction of value.

The essence of human consciousness is experience and the understanding of that experience, which then gives the organism a meaning or a measure.

And we distinguish experiences by degree of value.

[popeye1945]

The essence of human consciousness is the distinction of value.

The essence of human consciousness is experience and the understanding of that experience, which then gives the organism a meaning or a measure.

And we distinguish experiences by degree of value.

Are you suggesting that each experience is then evaluated by its value? If so, this would come from the understanding of the experience, which is summed up as meaning. Are you saying this meaning is a degree of value? Your statements remain difficult to understand.

[Eodnhoj7]

The essence of human consciousness is experience and the understanding of that experience, which then gives the organism a meaning or a measure.

And we distinguish experiences by degree of value.

Are you suggesting that each experience is then evaluated by its value? If so, this would come from the understanding of the experience, which is summed up as meaning. Are you saying this meaning is a degree of value? Your statements remain difficult to understand.

What I am saying is that all moral systems transform experience according to an intended achievement and maintenence of what is valued.

Morality is rooted in value. Morality is the framework by which experience occurs.

[popeye1945]

And we distinguish experiences by degree of value.

Are you suggesting that each experience is then evaluated by its value? If so, this would come from the understanding of the experience, which is summed up as meaning. Are you saying this meaning is a degree of value? Your statements remain difficult to understand.

What I am saying is that all moral systems transform experience according to an intended achievement and maintenance of what is valued.
Morality is rooted in value. Morality is the framework by which experience occurs.

I find this somewhat confusing. You come to know a physical world through your body, the outside world and its energies alter your biological state, and this is experience; the subjective understanding of this experience is meaning, and biological consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things; there is no other source of meaning in the world. Moralities' foundation is self-interest; that is why the most reasonable foundation for a moral system is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being. Anything else introduces confusion. Your statement that morality is the framework by which experience occurs is pure nonsense.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you suggesting that each experience is then evaluated by its value? If so, this would come from the understanding of the experience, which is summed up as meaning. Are you saying this meaning is a degree of value? Your statements remain difficult to understand.

What I am saying is that all moral systems transform experience according to an intended achievement and maintenance of what is valued.
Morality is rooted in value. Morality is the framework by which experience occurs.

I find this somewhat confusing. You come to know a physical world through your body, the outside world and its energies alter your biological state, and this is experience; the subjective understanding of this experience is meaning, and biological consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things; there is no other source of meaning in the world. Moralities' foundation is self-interest; that is why the most reasonable foundation for a moral system is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being. Anything else introduces confusion. Your statement that morality is the framework by which experience occurs is pure nonsense.

No. You are not bright. And I will explain why you are not bright while simultaneously explaining to you why the assertion is sensical.

Moral codes are the means by which people interact with experiential reality, they are the patterns by which perception filters experience by distinguishing 'this from that', 'right from wrong' and 'good and evil'.

These distinctions, made by perception, are filters by which we interact with reality thus forming experiences. Because morality shapes perception it shapes experience for by and with experience we make distinctions because of morality.

Now you seek understanding. This understanding is an experience and leads to further experiences as you interpret reality through understanding. In valuing understanding you have a corresponding means of maintaining and attaining it, a moral code premised upon the value of understanding. So you, in your process of understanding, make distinctions of what is sensical and what is non-sensical as a means of achieving understanding.

So, why you are not bright, is that you are unaware that in making distinctions of "sense" and "non-sense" you are following a moral code, premised on the value of understanding, that is inherently intertwined with your experience of understanding and forms said experience.

Your response of accusing me of non-sense just proves my point.

[popeye1945]

What I am saying is that all moral systems transform experience according to an intended achievement and maintenance of what is valued.
Morality is rooted in value. Morality is the framework by which experience occurs.

I find this somewhat confusing. You come to know a physical world through your body, the outside world and its energies alter your biological state, and this is experience; the subjective understanding of this experience is meaning, and biological consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things; there is no other source of meaning in the world. Moralities' foundation is self-interest; that is why the most reasonable foundation for a moral system is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being. Anything else introduces confusion. Your statement that morality is the framework by which experience occurs is pure nonsense.

No. You are not bright. And I will explain why you are not bright while simultaneously explaining to you why the assertion is sensical.

Moral codes are the means by which people interact with experiential reality, they are the patterns by which perception filters experience by distinguishing 'this from that', 'right from wrong' and 'good and evil'.

These distinctions, made by perception, are filters by which we interact with reality thus forming experiences. Because morality shapes perception it shapes experience for by and with experience we make distinctions because of morality.

Now you seek understanding. This understanding is an experience and leads to further experiences as you interpret reality through understanding. In valuing understanding you have a corresponding means of maintaining and attaining it, a moral code premised upon the value of understanding. So you, in your process of understanding, make distinctions of what is sensical and what is non-sensical as a means of achieving understanding.

So, why you are not bright, is that you are unaware that in making distinctions of "sense" and "non-sense" you are following a moral code, premised on the value of understanding, that is inherently intertwined with your experience of understanding and forms said experience.

Your response of accusing me of non-sense just proves my point.

I agree, we are getting nowhere in this dialogue, so I am stepping out. Have a good one!

[Eodnhoj7]

I find this somewhat confusing. You come to know a physical world through your body, the outside world and its energies alter your biological state, and this is experience; the subjective understanding of this experience is meaning, and biological consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things; there is no other source of meaning in the world. Moralities' foundation is self-interest; that is why the most reasonable foundation for a moral system is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being. Anything else introduces confusion. Your statement that morality is the framework by which experience occurs is pure nonsense.

No. You are not bright. And I will explain why you are not bright while simultaneously explaining to you why the assertion is sensical.

Moral codes are the means by which people interact with experiential reality, they are the patterns by which perception filters experience by distinguishing 'this from that', 'right from wrong' and 'good and evil'.

These distinctions, made by perception, are filters by which we interact with reality thus forming experiences. Because morality shapes perception it shapes experience for by and with experience we make distinctions because of morality.

Now you seek understanding. This understanding is an experience and leads to further experiences as you interpret reality through understanding. In valuing understanding you have a corresponding means of maintaining and attaining it, a moral code premised upon the value of understanding. So you, in your process of understanding, make distinctions of what is sensical and what is non-sensical as a means of achieving understanding.

So, why you are not bright, is that you are unaware that in making distinctions of "sense" and "non-sense" you are following a moral code, premised on the value of understanding, that is inherently intertwined with your experience of understanding and forms said experience.

Your response of accusing me of non-sense just proves my point.

I agree, we are getting nowhere in this dialogue, so I am stepping out. Have a good one!

You are getting nowhere because of a repeated loop of "biology leads to meaning" which has no evidence.

[popeye1945]

No. You are not bright. And I will explain why you are not bright while simultaneously explaining to you why the assertion is sensical.

Moral codes are the means by which people interact with experiential reality, they are the patterns by which perception filters experience by distinguishing 'this from that', 'right from wrong' and 'good and evil'.

These distinctions, made by perception, are filters by which we interact with reality thus forming experiences. Because morality shapes perception it shapes experience for by and with experience we make distinctions because of morality.

Now you seek understanding. This understanding is an experience and leads to further experiences as you interpret reality through understanding. In valuing understanding you have a corresponding means of maintaining and attaining it, a moral code premised upon the value of understanding. So you, in your process of understanding, make distinctions of what is sensical and what is non-sensical as a means of achieving understanding.

So, why you are not bright, is that you are unaware that in making distinctions of "sense" and "non-sense" you are following a moral code, premised on the value of understanding, that is inherently intertwined with your experience of understanding and forms said experience.

Your response of accusing me of non-sense just proves my point.

Have a good one and good luck.

I agree, we are getting nowhere in this dialogue, so I am stepping out. Have a good one!

You are getting nowhere because of a repeated loop of "biology leads to meaning" which has no evidence.