Why morality isn't a mere concept

[Stoica Doru]

As you all should've known by now, the increasing in counciousness makes you more loving, emphatic and sensibile to your detrimental behaviours.
You can't keep doing the things you used to do, namely addictions and subtle addictions which are uncouncious, because you are more councious now. An aspect we all agree upon. 

But there's something more subtle that happens if you slip from your new councious patterns and fall into uncounciousness again - guilt arises.
Guilt it's a subtle mechanism, which triggering could be artificially imposed by society, agreed, but it's a great firewall, coming to think of it. I mean, regardless of culture or certain backgrounds, we all fell certain emotions or feelings that are backed up by thoughts and actions, like helping a child who is crying or feeling a certain disgust to the negative outcomes of the world. I'm not saying we should embrace judgementalism, but human beings, their essence, their soul, their core, have something more profound that what meets the eye, and claiming that Good and Evil are relative it's only a partial truth, false in the absolute, but, from our given spiritual mechanics as humans, they're not just ideas, but tremendous gifts given to us by Source, God, The Universe, you name it, to celebrate our uniqueness.

Being truly spiritual is about accepting and integrating your humanity and its instinctual patterns, not avoiding your latent nature, or conceptualizing it in ideas in order to deny other domains that require analysis and contemplation. 

The next time you fell ashamed by certain things you do and totally drawn to honorable actions, just introspect who's the one that has those inclinations. You'll say that the ego has them. Indeed. The Ego it's your humanity, your other part - a part of God who's acting childish (depending on its development). And until you would've not integrated it fully, true spirituality will be an unreachable point. 

[Highest]

Morality is imbedded in us. Doesn't matter much if it came from the source or from God or from evolution. It is there, so no I wouldn't say it's a mere concept.

[Aimblack]

3 minutes ago, Highest said:

Morality is imbedded in us. Doesn't matter much if it came from the source or from God or from evolution. It is there, so no I wouldn't say it's a mere concept.

The notion that morality is embedded in us is also a concept....Hell, saying that morality is embedded in us might actually be the best argument as to why to it actually is a concept. Without you looking at a situation and labeling it moral or not the very question of something being moral would be ridiculous

[Highest]

12 minutes ago, Aimblack said:

The notion that morality is embedded in us is also a concept....Hell, saying that morality is embedded in us might actually be the best argument as to why to it actually is a concept. Without you looking at a situation and labeling it moral or not the very question of something being moral would be ridiculous

You have the ability to see that killing babies is bad or even evil, this stuff is imbedded in you if you are a normal human being, it's what makes you a human being, it's inherent in the human nature. If you don't want to call it morality, then call it something else or nothing at all. 

[Aimblack]

7 minutes ago, Highest said:

You have the ability to see that killing babies is bad or even evil, this stuff is imbedded in you if you are a normal human being, it's what makes you a human being, it's inherent in the human nature. If you don't want to call it morality, then call it something else or nothing at all. 

Not true I have the ability to recognize my reaction to seeing or hearing about a baby getting killed. The connection that a baby getting killed is bad..that is happening in the mind as a concept. As a matter of fact you need to accept a bunch of distinctions which are also concepts in order to think that killing babies is bad. For instance if killing babies is bad it might not be bad to kill an adult under the right circumstances. Every single thing about that is conceptual. For morality to work it needs to be specific way and not any other way, and in order to realize something as good or bad you need to make a bunch of distinctions which are all conceptual.

 

Working with your example you are making dozens of implicit distinctions. For example you are talking about the babies of humans and not animal babies or the babies sentient animals..etc etc. all those distinction exist only in the mind as concepts.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Aimblack

[Nahm]

@Stoica Doru If there is only you in a room alone, is there morality in the room? 

[Highest]

@Aimblack Alright, but would you not feel deep within if you saw a baby getting killed a feeling that it was wrong, immoral, and simply disturbing? How can you say that stuff like this is not imbedded in you?

I'm not speaking about the mind or concepts, the fact of the matter is that you feel and react to certain situations in which there is disturbance in you, we call these situations immoral, wrong or evil. Doesn't matter much, my point is that something is imbedded in us, which reacts to apparantly immoral situations, like killing babies or burning someone alive etc. 

[Aimblack]

Just now, Highest said:

@Aimblack Alright, but would you not feel deep within if you saw a baby getting killed a feeling that it was wrong, immoral, and simply disturbing? How can you say that stuff like this is not imbedded in you?

I'm not speaking about the mind or concepts, the fact of the matter is that you feel and react to certain situations in which there is disturbance in you, we call these situations immoral, wrong or evil. Doesn't matter much, my point is that something is imbedded in us, which reacts to apparantly immoral situations, like killing babies or burning someone alive etc. 

I would but that is an addition that I'm pinning on the situation that is exactly what a concept or a thought is. a situation being moral or immoral is not an attribute of the situation but something that is happening in my head and my reaction of what is happening in my head(like emotions) is what you are referring to. It might or might not be embedded in me,I actually don't know. but it doesn't change the fact that morality is still conceptual.

Again sure it might be embedded in me but that doesn't mean that it isn't a concept actually the most persistent thing that we are trying to work on is conceptual. the self is also conceptional but I'd like to stay away from talking about that because I don't have many direct experiences with self as concept.

[Guest Quanty]

Morality is tied to the EGO. Something we learn as a "software". Reality is not loving and giving etc. Reality is the survival of the fittest/strongest in all aspect of it. In conclusion, the healthy integration/consolidation of the EGO makes us moral. We are not born with built-in moral conduct in the sense we know of today, we learn this on the way.  

[InfinitePotential]

3 hours ago, Highest said:

@Aimblack Alright, but would you not feel deep within if you saw a baby getting killed a feeling that it was wrong, immoral, and simply disturbing? How can you say that stuff like this is not imbedded in you?

I'm not speaking about the mind or concepts, the fact of the matter is that you feel and react to certain situations in which there is disturbance in you, we call these situations immoral, wrong or evil. Doesn't matter much, my point is that something is imbedded in us, which reacts to apparantly immoral situations, like killing babies or burning someone alive etc. 

Chiming in here, I personally would be disturbed by such a thing but this is actually not as universal as you might think.  For example, tribal communities in which being sacrificed to the gods was honorable and desired.  

[Natasha]

Morality is ego's defense mechanism. No ego = no morality.

[Faceless]

5 hours ago, Quanty said:

In conclusion, the healthy integration/consolidation of the EGO makes us moral.

Hello friend

 

Integration of ego seems quite contradictory. Can the Ego ever be ’made’ whole. 

Could we say “moral” action is born in the absence of fear. 

Can fear be cultivated into love? 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

1 hour ago, Natasha said:

Morality is ego's defense mechanism. No ego = no morality.

Sure,  

Any conformity to a (conditioned ideal) like “morality”, is a form of imitation. We conform to ideas to evade the fact in ourselves, which is immorality. Morality which is conditioned is to seek security in that which thought has put together to bring about an escape from what is. When we seek psychological security in thought, we perpetuate the idea or morality and nourish immoral action. 

To conform to an idea of morality is immoral. True moral action is whole and not influenced by fear-thought-self. 

 

[Stoica Doru]

3 hours ago, Quanty said:

Morality is tied to the EGO. Something we learn as a "software". Reality is not loving and giving etc. Reality is the survival of the fittest/strongest in all aspect of it. In conclusion, the healthy integration/consolidation of the EGO makes us moral. We are not born with built-in moral conduct in the sense we know of today, we learn this on the way.  

Morality is egoless - that's why enlightened and fully developed begins are full with compassion and benevolence, while stil being out of their separate self. 

Reality is loving. I hope you'll reach and embody a potent level of enlightenment to see that. Everything it's God, and its taste it's pure love and expansion - nothing else. 

We are built with moral conducts. Just take a look at the babies who cry at the sensing of conflict or feel other's pain as their own, wanting to help or stop other's hurting. Regardless of race and other distinctions, they still love and befriend each other. Mortality can suffer mutations, that's for sure. But human beings have something unique and the basic mechanic of our species is cooperation, not survival of the fittest. This is the mentality that brought us on and on to war and to all the stupid segregations we see happening now and throughout history. 

God is expanding and all loving. That's its core intention. Mutation may arise, but the essence remains, maybe latent, maybe very obvious, it matters not. 

[Natasha]

38 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Sure,  

Any conformity to a (conditioned ideal) like “morality”, is a form of imitation. We conform to ideas to evade the fact in ourselves, which is immorality. Morality which is conditioned is to seek security in that which thought has put together to bring about an escape from what is. When we seek psychological security in thought, we perpetuate the idea or morality and nourish immoral action. 

To conform to an idea of morality is immoral. True moral action is whole and not influenced by fear-thought-self. 

 

Well said 

[Faceless]

47 minutes ago, Stoica Doru said:

But human beings have something unique and the basic mechanic of our species is cooperation, not survival of the fittest. This is the mentality that brought us on and on to war and to all the stupid segregations we see happening now and throughout history. 

??Hello @Stoica Doru

In a more subtle way “cooperation” or “compliance” to a particular ideal, movement, and so on, nourishes segregation, tribalism, and inevitably brings about antagonism-violence. Identification with any ideal such as “god is expanding an all loving” is to create the image (god) and conform to that ideal, in which becomes a means to influence a sense of cooperation. To create an image and pursue that image. Also a subtle form of self worship, or a movement of fear-ego.... To me, cooperation psychologically implies not a healthy loving relationship, but instead to put up with one another as long as we get somthing out of it. In this is a form of cooperation, which is then based on conditions, therefore not love at all. In that if we don’t get what we want (psychological security), the day of the dog begins. ?

We can observe this in our daily lives. We live by the idea to love our neibor, but really we are merely to a certain degree, “tolerating one another” as long as our individual needs are met. 

As long as there is this division, which is influenced by such ideologies as “god”, which implies fear and identification), cooperation-toleration will continue to divide the masses. 

Love has nothing to do with cooperation. Love comes about when the need to identify with an ideal, belief, (the movement of fear-thought) ends. 

As long as fear influences action, (to conform to an idea) immorality remains the fact. 

The only way the beauty of love can flower, is when all compulsions to “identity with” any content invented by thought ceases. 

When we can be rid of this subtle attachment to identify with some-“thing”, we can then stay empty-nothing. Only when one is psychologically empty-nothing, is there love. In this there is no limited movement to cooperate-comply-tolerate. To tolerate implies an ego, (fear) subtlety negotiating with one another. 

Why can’t we stay empty-nothing?? 

That is the question. 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

@Natasha

I figured you were implying something similar. 

A lot of times people will read what you posted and think that is an immoral statement. 

Maybe this is because fear itself is doing the reading. Hehe

[Natasha]

7 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Maybe this is because fear itself is doing the reading. Hehe

It is 

[Leo Gura]

Here's a simple thought experiment for you moralists:

If we program a robot with a rule which says: "Do not kill robots" does that make this rule have any objective validity? If we program the robot to feel guilty for killing a robot, does that make it any more objective?

What if we program another robot with the opposite rule? Which one of them is right? Based on who's criteria?

[Widdle Puppy]

I think to some extent different actions carry different intrinsic properties to them. You CAN increase awareness with negative actions. For instance a pick pocket has to increase their focus and concentration to be effective at what they do. From a very low conscious place a person in a fist fight needs to focus greatly on their body and the present moment in order to win the fight. The opposite would be a person who is meditating and focusing with an accepting, impassionate and loving mind.

Both my meditation and fist fight example are actively practicing concentration and building awareness but only one of them will lead to higher consciousness. Having rules and morals is necessary to make progress because starting out you are usually in a lower place of consciousness and need rules and a model to follow so to speak which will keep you in the right direction. As you grow these rules won't be observed in the same way and not even held in the same way because you've embodied them and are operating where things just sort of unfold in a positive way effortlessly from one moment into the next.

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Widdle Puppy