GeistFaust
05-05-2012, 05:47 AM
Morality is one of the most ambigious and vague defined areas of philosophy itself, and in order to understand it a clearer light, it must be understood in the most rational of light. A mere metaphysical morality, which has no roots or grounds in reality itself can not qualify to be considered a proper system of morality. That said it is important to not negate the metaphysical qualities of a system of morality in our preliminary investigation, since its essential to our investigation itself.
Without the concept of such metaphysical qualities or the "thought" of it existing the foundations and "structures" of morality itself would not be able to depart to conclude upon a proper system of morality. It is this proper system of morality, which we are attempting to discover and uncover from a dogmatic principle, upon which morality derives its very self in the process of thought, behavior, and action.
It would be unreasonable to exclude the "possibility" of such a dogmatic code existing, since it appears that even if there is not an absolute truth, there is sometimes a quasi-similarity in the conceptual understanding of morality as it pertains to humanity in its totality. That is there are a few specific situations, actions, and thoughts, which can be said to be considered objectively wrong the world about.
That is in a broader cultural and social context there are necessary actions, which ought to be obstructed, in order to maintain "civilization" itself, and this applies to both people with culture and lesser forms of culture. It is upon this broader culture and social context that individuals learn to derive their own models for morality, but how does the larger socio-cultural complex play a role in the formation of a dogmatic morality itself?
The socio-cultural complex itself is a "relative" phenomenon itself, and all of its thought structures and regulations are relative in the true and authentic sense. This does not "mean" though that there is not an objectivity and absoluteness to this relativity. That is we can not say that the relativity and objectivity of morality in the context of this larger socio-cultural complex are mutually exclusive to each other, because then we would be negating the "possibility" of morality itelf.
This would cause us to delete a dogmatic code of morality, which if it exists, would be found as determined both in a fixed and dynamic manner within this broader socio-cultural complex. In a sense the relative and objective nature of morality in the socio-cultural complex are mutually inclusive in the sense they don't necessarily exclude each other, but merely condition each other.
That is an objective and dogmatic code of morality can not possibly be affirmed in any true and authentic sense, even if it exists independent of reality itself, without being applied and derived in the context of the larger socio-cultural complex. This means that an objective and dogmatic code itself is dependent on the structures of the socio-cultural complex in order to be considered in the organon of the human consciousness as a module "operator" of morality itself.
That is without the multiple individuals, cultural norms, legal codes, and a broader sociological consciousness "morality" itself in the dogmatic sense could not "facilitate" itself. The critical question regarding this is that is this merely a psychological affirmation and reaction rather then a truly "rational" and "real" understanding of morality. It takes a broader concrete social consciousness in order for morality to feel itself as a "real" process, which has both a dogmatic and legislative nature to it.
The broader concrete social consciousness gives a context and conditions morality itself as an objectivie and dogmatic code that lies within the cognitive intuition of the mind. This means that in a sense a dogmatic code of morality could not be possibly fixed. This is due to the fact that society and its environment within the context of the broader socio-cultural consciousness is subject to change.
The perceptions, thoughts, and intuitions regarding it will be subject to change as the moral norms are advanced and adapted to accord with the "changes" of the broader socio-cultural consciousness. These "changes" are not mere dynamic processes that occur external to social conditions, but they are conditioned by the orientation of the broader socio-cultural consciousness.
Yet they operate as "separate" from this broader socio-cultural consciousness, and are "extending" upon its framework within a cyclical model of decay and growth. It is within this cyclical model of decay and growth as it relates to the broader socio-cultural consciousness that we can truly begin to understand how morality works in a conceptual sense in the dynamic processes of society and the environment.
Morality in its true sense operates off the external "changes" of its environment and the thoughts/actions of specific individuals, which are "located" and conditioned within the broader socio-cultural consciousness. It is within this complex that we find a union and disjunction between its member's actions and the actual fixed dogmatic codes of morality as contained in the externalities of the environment.
It is at this point that I would like to substitute the multiple members and individuals of society for the broader socio-cultural complex, which is merely a collection and colloborating force of a multitude of individuals in response and reaction to the wants/demands within the context of the environment. Its impossible to delineate the understanding of dogmatic and relativistic morality within the context of merely the broader socio-cultural complex without understanding it in the context of the individuals which define it.
The broader socio-cultural complex is purely a construction and format derived from the individual within a certain socio-cultural structure, which operates off of specific dynamic and mechanics. That said it is likewise impossible to understand how dogmatic morality applies to the individual if we do not understand it within the context of the socio-cultural consciousness and the externalities of the environment, which represents itself in a metaphysical manner in the individual and through his behaviors and actions.
That is we can not evaluate the possibility of a dogmatic system of morality until we have "understood" the actual and conceptual relationship between the "dual" parts of the individual. This is something we must understand from an individualistic perspective, and if it is not conditioned and grounded on such a perspective then it will be impossible to derive and apply a dogmatic code within the larger context of the socio-cultural consciousness and externalities of the environment.
That is without considering the individual a dogmatic code completely fails, but if the individual does not consider the dogmatic code within the context of the socio-cultural consciousness then it fails likewise to act morally. This means that there needs to be a mutuality developed between the individual and state regarding moral matters, but it must not center around the individual. That is a dogmatic code of morality ought not to center on the individual other then when the individual is striving and acting to derive a dogmatic code of morality.
This is done in order to apply it to the relation its thoughts and actions have to the structures of the broader socio-cultural complex and the externalities of its environment. The individual takes a central point in the establishment of the groundworks of a system of dogmatic morality in so far as it is conditioned by relative measures.
Relative measures, which include both subjectively and objectively understood principles and rules, but which depends on a certain organon of the broader socio-cultural complex to define subjective and objective. This issue relates back to the issue regarding a quasi-similarity in a conceptual understanding of morality regarding specific actions and behaviors in order to preserve the self in the broader context of the socio-cultural complex and the externalities of the environment.
If one kills, steals, or rapes then they have negated the self in a sense from the broader context of the socio-cultural complex and the externalities of its environment, because it has violated the framework and structures of the socio-cultural complex. It is because killing, stealing, and raping constitutes a series of actions, which are contradictory to the model and organon of the socio-cultural consciousness, which is the grounds upon which subjective and objective are defined and conditioned.
That is the organon of the socio-cultural consciousness, which "forms" the dogmatic conceptions and understanding of morality itself in the individual, must be understood as objective in a "sense." That is there are a few specific actions, which ought not be committed, unless civilization and culture, regardless of how primitive or advanced it is, will be terminated in the broader sense.
That is it will be terminated for the individual itself, because it will be a violation of the individual, which is the key concern for all metaphysical and dogmatic codes of morality. That is because the individual is critical for conditioning, facilitating, and projecting the organon of the socio-cultural consciousnes in a manner that accords in a proportional manner to its "relative" nature.
I will continue further on this, but for now I have just given a general and preliminary outlook on my system of morality as it pertains to the individual, which hinges on the "duality" of the "dogmatic." The "dogmatic" is just a substitute terminology for the abstract and concrete relationships and moral applications as derived between the socio-cultural consciousness and the externalities of the environment.
Without the concept of such metaphysical qualities or the "thought" of it existing the foundations and "structures" of morality itself would not be able to depart to conclude upon a proper system of morality. It is this proper system of morality, which we are attempting to discover and uncover from a dogmatic principle, upon which morality derives its very self in the process of thought, behavior, and action.
It would be unreasonable to exclude the "possibility" of such a dogmatic code existing, since it appears that even if there is not an absolute truth, there is sometimes a quasi-similarity in the conceptual understanding of morality as it pertains to humanity in its totality. That is there are a few specific situations, actions, and thoughts, which can be said to be considered objectively wrong the world about.
That is in a broader cultural and social context there are necessary actions, which ought to be obstructed, in order to maintain "civilization" itself, and this applies to both people with culture and lesser forms of culture. It is upon this broader culture and social context that individuals learn to derive their own models for morality, but how does the larger socio-cultural complex play a role in the formation of a dogmatic morality itself?
The socio-cultural complex itself is a "relative" phenomenon itself, and all of its thought structures and regulations are relative in the true and authentic sense. This does not "mean" though that there is not an objectivity and absoluteness to this relativity. That is we can not say that the relativity and objectivity of morality in the context of this larger socio-cultural complex are mutually exclusive to each other, because then we would be negating the "possibility" of morality itelf.
This would cause us to delete a dogmatic code of morality, which if it exists, would be found as determined both in a fixed and dynamic manner within this broader socio-cultural complex. In a sense the relative and objective nature of morality in the socio-cultural complex are mutually inclusive in the sense they don't necessarily exclude each other, but merely condition each other.
That is an objective and dogmatic code of morality can not possibly be affirmed in any true and authentic sense, even if it exists independent of reality itself, without being applied and derived in the context of the larger socio-cultural complex. This means that an objective and dogmatic code itself is dependent on the structures of the socio-cultural complex in order to be considered in the organon of the human consciousness as a module "operator" of morality itself.
That is without the multiple individuals, cultural norms, legal codes, and a broader sociological consciousness "morality" itself in the dogmatic sense could not "facilitate" itself. The critical question regarding this is that is this merely a psychological affirmation and reaction rather then a truly "rational" and "real" understanding of morality. It takes a broader concrete social consciousness in order for morality to feel itself as a "real" process, which has both a dogmatic and legislative nature to it.
The broader concrete social consciousness gives a context and conditions morality itself as an objectivie and dogmatic code that lies within the cognitive intuition of the mind. This means that in a sense a dogmatic code of morality could not be possibly fixed. This is due to the fact that society and its environment within the context of the broader socio-cultural consciousness is subject to change.
The perceptions, thoughts, and intuitions regarding it will be subject to change as the moral norms are advanced and adapted to accord with the "changes" of the broader socio-cultural consciousness. These "changes" are not mere dynamic processes that occur external to social conditions, but they are conditioned by the orientation of the broader socio-cultural consciousness.
Yet they operate as "separate" from this broader socio-cultural consciousness, and are "extending" upon its framework within a cyclical model of decay and growth. It is within this cyclical model of decay and growth as it relates to the broader socio-cultural consciousness that we can truly begin to understand how morality works in a conceptual sense in the dynamic processes of society and the environment.
Morality in its true sense operates off the external "changes" of its environment and the thoughts/actions of specific individuals, which are "located" and conditioned within the broader socio-cultural consciousness. It is within this complex that we find a union and disjunction between its member's actions and the actual fixed dogmatic codes of morality as contained in the externalities of the environment.
It is at this point that I would like to substitute the multiple members and individuals of society for the broader socio-cultural complex, which is merely a collection and colloborating force of a multitude of individuals in response and reaction to the wants/demands within the context of the environment. Its impossible to delineate the understanding of dogmatic and relativistic morality within the context of merely the broader socio-cultural complex without understanding it in the context of the individuals which define it.
The broader socio-cultural complex is purely a construction and format derived from the individual within a certain socio-cultural structure, which operates off of specific dynamic and mechanics. That said it is likewise impossible to understand how dogmatic morality applies to the individual if we do not understand it within the context of the socio-cultural consciousness and the externalities of the environment, which represents itself in a metaphysical manner in the individual and through his behaviors and actions.
That is we can not evaluate the possibility of a dogmatic system of morality until we have "understood" the actual and conceptual relationship between the "dual" parts of the individual. This is something we must understand from an individualistic perspective, and if it is not conditioned and grounded on such a perspective then it will be impossible to derive and apply a dogmatic code within the larger context of the socio-cultural consciousness and externalities of the environment.
That is without considering the individual a dogmatic code completely fails, but if the individual does not consider the dogmatic code within the context of the socio-cultural consciousness then it fails likewise to act morally. This means that there needs to be a mutuality developed between the individual and state regarding moral matters, but it must not center around the individual. That is a dogmatic code of morality ought not to center on the individual other then when the individual is striving and acting to derive a dogmatic code of morality.
This is done in order to apply it to the relation its thoughts and actions have to the structures of the broader socio-cultural complex and the externalities of its environment. The individual takes a central point in the establishment of the groundworks of a system of dogmatic morality in so far as it is conditioned by relative measures.
Relative measures, which include both subjectively and objectively understood principles and rules, but which depends on a certain organon of the broader socio-cultural complex to define subjective and objective. This issue relates back to the issue regarding a quasi-similarity in a conceptual understanding of morality regarding specific actions and behaviors in order to preserve the self in the broader context of the socio-cultural complex and the externalities of the environment.
If one kills, steals, or rapes then they have negated the self in a sense from the broader context of the socio-cultural complex and the externalities of its environment, because it has violated the framework and structures of the socio-cultural complex. It is because killing, stealing, and raping constitutes a series of actions, which are contradictory to the model and organon of the socio-cultural consciousness, which is the grounds upon which subjective and objective are defined and conditioned.
That is the organon of the socio-cultural consciousness, which "forms" the dogmatic conceptions and understanding of morality itself in the individual, must be understood as objective in a "sense." That is there are a few specific actions, which ought not be committed, unless civilization and culture, regardless of how primitive or advanced it is, will be terminated in the broader sense.
That is it will be terminated for the individual itself, because it will be a violation of the individual, which is the key concern for all metaphysical and dogmatic codes of morality. That is because the individual is critical for conditioning, facilitating, and projecting the organon of the socio-cultural consciousnes in a manner that accords in a proportional manner to its "relative" nature.
I will continue further on this, but for now I have just given a general and preliminary outlook on my system of morality as it pertains to the individual, which hinges on the "duality" of the "dogmatic." The "dogmatic" is just a substitute terminology for the abstract and concrete relationships and moral applications as derived between the socio-cultural consciousness and the externalities of the environment.