Proving Morality: In the Beginning

This is part 5, “In the Beginning,” of the five-part getting-really-long-with-no-certain-end-in-sight-just-yet essay “Proving Morality.” You may wish to read part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 first. Didn’t think so. For those greatest of explorers, you might want to print or download this essay and review it at disparate points in your life. You’ll thank me. Your enemies are closing in fast. In early 2013, Argentina is to California what California is and has perennially been to the rest of the United States: el futuro.

I believe the greatest exploration a human can make is in the realm of knowledge. Knowledge implies existence and reality that must be ‘read’ for enlightenment. Morality, if it exists, must conform to the rules of existence in some contextual reality. Thus, we are at the philosophical beginning with seminal choice. In what context shall we search for morality? What is the egg to the sperm? Context is half the truth.

Shall we search for context in primal mortal fear? Nay. If we seek truth, we seek to face the fear of the unfairness of life with courage and to look clearly through it. If we do not seek truth, we seek the power to deceive ourselves at the expense of domesticating our mortal vitality. And if we do not master our own mortal vitality, there are plenty of other humans who would love to own our human mind, body, and labor. Such cowardly weaklings are not my brothers, are not my sisters, are not human for they would rather dismiss the intrinsic breadth of what it means to be human above happy cattle, mindless sheep, above the savage but proud lions, indeed the entire animal kingdom. A pig may thrive in a life of mud wallowing, but a man that is a man by natural endowment has suffered great injury at adopting the lifestyle and perspective of a pig.

And we come upon the divide in humanity, or in homo sapiens if you prefer on the grounds of vocabulary integrity. That is our reality: a divisive threshold of natural human nobility pitting civilized haves against savage have-nots. What morality could coexist?

The blind faithers of religion set morality in a context of supernatural existence not proven by one shred of credible evidence. If your feelings are the full breadth of your reality, Big God or Big Government will save you from your primal mortal fear because for your allegiance your political masters mercifully rebrand your chicken-hearted self-identity Bravery™ in the face of Evil™. Evil demons. Evil patriarchy. Evil heathen. Evil infidels. Evil racists. Evil misogynists. Evil political rivals to be overcome by the virtue of The One™ true faith.

I don’t place our governing morality in the supernatural. However, let’s suppose for the sake of argument it is so. It can only be so for us mortals if we have some sort of claim on the supernatural. That claim is called a soul. Are we to believe that whilst we live in mortal shells we are to be governed by supernatural morality? It is guaranteed failure. Why? Because supernatural morality is NOT applicable to natural existence or even our personal psychological existences. If it were, we could be mortal and without sin. The guarantee of failure serves political subjugation without a doubt, and does not serve supernatural morality without a doubt, admitted by the theological necessity of divine redemption. A mortal is incapable of applying himself to supernatural context or supernatural morality. It is glorified fear to think otherwise. What god worth serving requires a lifetime tribulation of certain inadequacy with attendant pain given and received?

I choose to search for morality as behavioral code permissible in the context of natural reality. That way if it exists, we or I or you can actually live it. Wouldn’t that be nice? Furthermore, whatever exists contingent upon the supernatural can’t possibly be antithetical to a concomitant supernatural morality. Is the morality in a video game antithetical to the morality applicable to the programmers who created it? The slave order wholly dependent on the master order is by definition dutifully servile. What is there to fear by exploring this line of thought except truth?

With philosophical skepticism, we strip away all but the best idea or ideas on what our natural reality is. In the hard science of non-social environmental constructs we use the philosophy called science. In the soft sciences we additionally use non-scientific philosophy to bridge interpretive gaps beyond the ken of science. Why? For us mortals not everything perceivable and consequential is empirically testable.

I note establishment technocrats sincerely practice only the philosophy of fostering their political advantages, but we can use philosophy without their lies to strip away all but the best idea or ideas by seeking interpretive consistency. That is the Socratic method. It is a safe assumption to suppose reality must be consistent with itself because it is a superlative assumption, and no scaffolding of logic is possible without some foundation of assumption. Furthermore, no definitive functionality necessary for the existential definition of mortal life or the dynamic natural universe is plausible without the existence of one or more invariants termed natural law. The existence of natural law is another superlative assumption. Thus, I assume perfectly self-consistent natural law exists as the behavioral code for perfectly self-consistent natural reality. Our behavioral code choices are nestled within.

I choose as definitive context the Big Bang, the evolutionary batch process of reality still going strong. Supernatural intervention for the benefit of one or more people in our shared dynamic context called physical reality is termed a miracle. I choose evolution as the definitive process of our universe and life as we know it. The case for evolution as the definitive process of natural life is made brilliantly by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. The deprecative apologia found in the front matter is lube for the vaginally and intellectually arid femcunt gatekeepers housed by Big Brother in state ivory watchtower seraglios. All the socially substantial books of academia are lubed generously, so read between the lubes, my brothers.

Thus, I seminally assume:

  1. A perfectly self-consistent natural law exists as the behavioral code for the evolution of our perfectly self-consistent natural reality,
  2. Our behavioral code choices are constrained within that code of natural law and its reigning state of evolutionary process, and
  3. Morality is an existentially valid behavioral code adopted with individual volition as a superlative existential individual choice and shared socially with an understanding of reciprocity.

I plan on continuing this essay with several successive installments published weekly on the Mondays. The derivation of what I regard to be morality will be given next, in part 6. Parts 7 and 8 will treat the application of that moral code to the present nature and state of human existence.

—‘Reality’ Doug, 20 May 2013


About ‘Reality’ Doug

I'm feed up with herd people, so civil and uncivilized, these feckless barbarians with manicures. Where is Galt's Gulch? and where are the people to go there? Who am I? Who is John Galt?
Gallery | This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s