TreyMoney

Anyone here fans of Mark Passio's work?

Thanks @Godhead @TreyMoney

@Godhead which of those have you read?

@Godhead do you know of any good books on spiral dynamics?

@BlackMaze hey maze, nice post. Breath is life. When breath ends, life ends. First step is to switch to nose breathing and stop mouth breathing. Some people may have trouble switching to nose only breathing but with conscious practice it can be done. Start by being still. Sit and nose breath only. Then breath nose only while moving. Nose breathing will naturally go to the optimal depth for your body. Then if you want to get into more advanced breath work yoga has a ton of different techniques.

@Godhead I'm beige ; )

Would NAP fit better under Green?

Yellow would be moral relativism then or moral nihilism?

Where would logical objective morality fit into the spiral? Orange you think? I'm very open to other opinions here.

Here is how I see morality within the spiral dynamics framework: Purple = morality of the tribe is true, all other moralities are false. Red = amorality, whatever we need to do to enrich ourselves by any means necessary is moral Blue = morality of the culture/religion is true, all other moralities are false. Orange = amorality, greed is good, whatever increases profits, productivity, wealth and living standards is moral. Green = moral relativism, my morality, my reality and my truth may differ from your morality, your reality and your truth, but no moral framework is objectively any better or worse than any other moral framework. Yellow = moral absolutism, there exists a universal, logically consistent, objective moral framework to judge the ethical value of human action. Turquoise = moral nihilism, there ultimately is no such thing as objective right or wrong.

@Godhead I'm interested in your moral system. How do you determine what is right and wrong behavior? Do you have a moral framework? Outline your belief system.

@Godhead I have a neat answer to your car questions but I won't waste your time since I know you will just reject it off hand. I would absolutely steal if I needed to in order to survive. That doesn't make it moral.

@trenton Thanks for the comment! You are absolutely correct from the enlightened point of view. What ever is, is right. There is no such thing as wrong or evil from the enlightened point of view. Existence, reality, the universe, is perfect just as it is. It cannot be other than it is, because there is no other. There is only it. I am it, you are it, this is it, and so is that, he is it, she is it, it is it, and that is that. From the non-enlightened state though, from the everyday world point of view, wouldn't a rational, object, universal morality based on peaceful, nonviolent interaction be beneficial to human survival and evolution? It does assume the base value of survival as you mentioned. Appreciate your input and perspective. Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love. TreyMoney

In that situation, it is not the electricity that causing you physically harm. It is your own beliefs causing you physical harm. In the music example, it is not the music that causes sleep deprivation, but my inability to find a non-violent solution to the non-violent problem....such as ear plugs or headphones, or sound proofing my home, or nicely asking my neighbor to turn the music down.

If they own the property on which the electrical line is built, and it is only near your property, then that is not violence against you. You can shield your property with space blankets a la Chuck in Better Call Saul. Or you can move. But your emotional harm is not physical harm, so you can't use physically force to defend yourself from nonphysical harm. That would be like murdering my neighbor for playing loud music. Their music may hurt me emotionally and psychologically, but it is not hurting me physically so I can't defend myself with physical force.

1. Establish boundaries. If your mother does something that you feel is inappropriate, tell her that is not ok, and you won't accept that behavior anymore. 2. Establish independence. Move out on your own as soon as possible if you still live at home. 3. If your mother tries to guilt or shame you for doing 1 of 2, she is trying to manipulate you, and you should consider either cutting her out if your life entirely or only seeing her at certain times of the year at your choosing. Hope this helps. P.s. I have personally cut off communication with my grandmother and other family members so I speak from experience. Cheers to health, wealth, peace and love. TreyMoney

@Opo i think corporate pollution of the environment is violence, yes, because it harms people without their consent. Imagine there is an oil spill, and it pollutes a river that runs by my home that I use for drinking water. The oil spill causes harm to my portion of the river stream and harm to me if I drink the water. That is definitely violence. Corporations forcing people off of land is definitely violence. Corporations use moral relativism to their advantage by changing the laws to whatever suits them at the moment.

@Opo so here we need to come to an agreed upon definition of violence before we can continue. I define violence as an action that harms a human being physically or harms their property against their will. What is your definition of violence?

Also, by simply engaging in philosophical discourse, a person is actively valuing the search for truth, through the use of reason. So to deny reason while simultaneously engaging in argument is itself contradictory.

Irrational moralities lead to contradictory conclusions. Rational moralities lead to consistent conclusions. I have only discovered one rational, consistent, non-contradictory morality....the NAP Voluntary moral framework, thus I believe it is the only rational moral framework, thus moral absolutism. There are certainly other moral frameworks but they lead to contradictory conclusions, and are thus false, incorrect moral frameworks.

@Godhead What separates my "relative" morality is its logical consistency. Apply the coma test: a human being in a coma is not acting. So if violence is morally good, then anyone not acting violently this instant is immoral, thus the coma patient is immoral. If violence is good, then in order for the coma patient to be a moral being they must awake from the coma and begin acting violently, which they cannot do, because they cannot act. It is incoherent. But if non-violence is morally good, then anyone not acting violently at this very moment, such as our coma patient, are moral beings.

Because morality is a framework for guiding action. And logically consistent frameworks result in correct conclusions while logically inconsistent framework result in incorrect conclusions. It's like asking why should I apply mathematical principles when solving equations? The answer is whether you value the correct conclusion or not. If someone is not interested in the correct conclusion, that is fine. But if they are, they should apply the laws of logic. The branches of philosophy have an order to them. 1. Metaphysics: study of reality. 2. Epistemology: study of knowledge. 3. Logic: study of reason. 4. Axiology: study of value. 1&2 are empirical based. 3&4 are reason based. Logic is prerequisite to any type framework, moral or otherwise.

Islam and Judaism are religious belief systems not rational belief systems. Can't reason with religious fundamentalists.

It's about logical consistency. If it is ok for me to kill someone and steal their stuff, then I should also be ok with someone killing me and stealing my stuff, right? It can't be right for me but wrong for someone else. That's contradictory.

@Godhead im very glad that you are engaging in this discussion because these criticisms are commonly encountered. First, morality is a framework to govern human interaction, not humans interaction with other creatures. Second, any moral framework needs a guiding principle. The guiding principle for all action is choice. If I choose to take an action and that action either a) does not impact any other person or b) it does impact another person physically or impacts their property, but that person also consents to my action, then my action is right. If my action impacts another person physically or impacts their property, and they do not consent, then that person is wronged or harmed, and the action is wrong.