Universe's organization as focus for ethics

All ethical systems stem from an initial standpoint over whether or not the trunk of a particular tree is good or bad.

Is each diverging branch a manifestation of good–a characteristic to have or an action to make, or bad–somethng to be avoided? Different ethical systems can focus on what to avoid (leading to good) or what to pursue (avoiding the bad), depending on tenants of the shared philosophy, and how one’s mind interprets and uses it.

Some focus on a belief in God, which can result in evil-avoiding ethical systems–don’t do this or that–or positive-pursuing standpoints–what does God’s creation tell us? What kinds of behavior do the laws of nature suggest we take? Which actions on our part will fit into the framework of the universe?

Every moment, every change/process of time brings about a new universe. As the apparent New-Age anthem chants: We live in the NOW. This does not undermind the fact that the past had indeed existed, and that learning from them gives us predictive power, but a sensitivity to each single universe–which for humans, limited in their subjective experience of time to the shift in one perception to the manifestation of another, is synonomous any given situation–makes one more likely to feel an important role in the creation of the universe.

The Hindu Trinity consists of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer. I interpret this as the representation of a change from one moment to the next. Brahma adds to Universe A, while Shiva removes. Vishnu’s role is maintaining stuff (of a certain quality) from universe A to B. Brahma are the hands that continually add clay to slab, while Shiva acts as the chisel, simultanously chipping away at an image that never seem to remain constant. Why can’t it remain constant? Because Vishnu, the one who is sculpting, is growing himself with each decision. With every interpretation of the image, and every chosen action on how to alter it, he programs his mind towards an interpretation of both an ideal, and flaws that prevent that ideal from realization.

Vishnu, like his Christian counterpart Jesus, are humans associated with divinity. Jesus says “The Kingdom of God is within you”; we all are endowed with the ability to bring about a certain universe by preserving certain things and letting go of others.

So, back to ethics. What do we preserve, and what do we refuse to hold onto?

Perhaps a start is understanding that we are part of the universe, part of the sun, part of the earth. Although we have this “Ego-It” consciousness, we are not seperate from these things.

What kinds of actions does the universe promote?

There is life, growth, variation, change.

Should we attempt to model ourselves after these qualities, and respect how these characteristics manifest themselves in the individual?

What should be preserved? What is vital to an optimally functioning individual? Some say the individual is an illusion, that the individual should follow the community. I say if a particular community is leading to diseased and dissatisfied individuals, than the system is flawed; there is something wrong with the cell if it is creating parasites that wreak havoc on itself.

One may argue that if the earth is creating sick communities, than perhaps there is something wrong with the earth, and if there is something wrong with the earth then there must be something wrong with the solar system, and continue this until one comes to the conclusion that the universe and/or God is itself flawed, and nothing to be modeled after. However, I want to stress that humans are creating the societies.

Thoughts?

What do we preserve, and what do we refuse to hold onto?

We preserve that which adds to life in quality and quantity. We refuse that which diminishes life in quality and quantity.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=154548

one preserves the chaos and constant change that ensues from one moment to the next…

-Imp

People often talk about natural things in such a way that we that assumes that human actions are not natural.

A bever’s dam is considered a part of nature. So is a birds nest. It is also true that the Empire State building is natural. For its makers were a part of nature. Eh eh?

Value statements, without an objective guidebook by which to judge whatever it is that is being judged, will enrage your average pacifist to extreme violence withing mere nanoseconds.

Are you accusing me of this?

I certainly don’t consider human behavior “unnatural”, I realize that a man’s body is not seperate in the process of birth and death for every living thing on the planet; but man’s ability to introspect, this “mind” we can refer from our self-consciousness, enables one to look into his own private inner world, and react to the stimuli of one’s own interpretation, rather than act merely from external stimuli.

By “unnatural” people can often mean that man’s abilities have resulted in action that conflict with the health of the earth. The earth naturally takes care of itself, heals itself, and we are but cells on the earth. But our words have confused us form this simple truth, and we instead attack other cells, weakening the earth itself.

Literally, saying “unnatural” doesn’t make much sense, but the message is clear.

I think of two ultimate societies, and I wonder if I am only seeing two options because I’m too primitive, or is it really a fundamental choice?

The first society believes in assimilating everything to its ideal. It’s not necessarily a horrible society, but it has no belief in appreciating something for existing in its own regard. It is certainly respectful and diplimatic at times. It will not brashly jump into dangerous war. But the fact of the matter is, it believes itself to be the endowment unto the multiverse. It must “flower” reality if you will.

The second society believes that it can consume resources to support a way of life. But it only has so much room it deserves. It may calculate this “deserving” in an enormously complex way.

Which one can we call more ethical? Which one are we becoming? Are societies bent to enter one of these particular modes from early on, and get caught in the wet cement of it?

If the first society discovers us and is much more technologically advanced, surely we will be assimilated and our way of existence will be over. But why should we be so bothered by that? They say the universe may encounter a giant crunch by which, no matter what civilization is created, it’ll all be destroyed shortly. If someone can “race” to find a solution which lets us survive it, why not let them take all at their disposal?

If the second society discovers us and is much more technologically advanced, surely it will deliberately ignore many of our pains. But why not? Even kindly offering us knowledge could destroy us completely. They may as well watch us solve our own problems. And after all, maybe we were all only “meant” to exist for a time within this universe- or on this world, or on this country, or for your lifetime, etc.