Ontological Propriety vs Dharmic Non-Intrinsicism
A Two-Part Debate featuring Praxius and I against an Advaita Vedantin Convert
Latest Revision: September 1st, 2024.
Premise
The contents of this paper consist of a two-part debate regarding the metaphysical basis for morality and the characterization of actions as “moral or immoral”, “correct or incorrect”, “skillful or unskillful”, and so forth. Praxius and myself are self-described perennialists and Metaphysical Traditionalists. Our opponent here is referenced as my “anonymous teacher” in my other works. He is a white convert to the non-dualist Hindu school known as Advaita Vedanta, but has great affinity for Diamond Vehicle Buddhism (or Tantrayana), and may technically be characterized as a perennialist himself, though this is not a label that he has explicitly identified with. In this debate, Praxius and I uphold a Platonic model which takes Reality to be “preordained” with a hierarchical “Design”, wherein the category of “Essence”, “Quintessential Reality”, or “the macrocosm” is repeatedly bifurcated into varying principial degrees which are occupied by principles or archetypes (conditioning factors). Our position is that the macrocosm is self-replicating and ultimately terminates in the microcosm (“Substance”), and that the macrocosm is incorporative of the microcosm where humanly affairs take place. We believe that this preordainment or Design is inherently volitional, such that there is a “default mode of Being” which is “predestined” of this Design—its “Plan”, and that beings owe their ontologically superior archetypes the debt of fulfilling their likenesses faithfully in what can be called “ontological propriety”—a term for metaphysical normativity which is synonymous with “archetypal fulfillment” or “proper praxis”—and that this is the basis for determining what is “correct or incorrect” in an objective sense. In contrast, our Dharmic friend holds that Reality lacks an attestable ontology or metaphysical structure, and that any attempts to discriminate degrees of conditionality are ultimately relative or humanistic, being seated in the conceit of self-view, whereas the Ultimate Reality which they would be signicated upon is “empty” and “not self”. (In this way, Reality is also held to be void of inherit volition, even if purely intrinsic.) More specifically, he believes that any supposed morality ascribed to conditions or phenomena is predicated on a subjective reaction to them in regards to sensual pursuits. In his view, intention holds a seat of primacy in determining the Karmic debt of volitional causalities, while their effects can be evaluated in terms of their production of “Dukkha” (existential unsatisfactoriness or incompleteness), which is practically determined to be “skillful or unskillful” with respect to the end goal of a person to detach themself from causality and conditionality in pursuit of the unconditioned existence—the path of renunciation and asceticism. (Both participants consented to me posting their debate transcript. Grammar has been edited, but not unfaithfully. Grammatical changes include only punctuation and capitalization corrections, the insertion of conjunctions or prepositions such as “and” or “of” where missing, the pluralization of words, and parenthetical clarifiers (italicized).)
Table of Contents
PART I
PART II
Part I
Me:
@AT However, I will say this: Intent is only half of the equation in determining the morality of an action. Ontological propriety is the other half. We might think for instance of a civilization which teaches that homosexuality or polygamy are acceptable behaviors. Its citizens might engage in such relationships with wholesome intent. However, this is ontologically improper praxis, since the praxis of their actions would be in defiance to the “default mode of Being” or how they’re meant to truly be. Thus, even with wholesome intent, they have sinned.
Praxius:
I would take an adjacent viewpoint; in the world of Tradition, life as a principle is generally seen as inconsequential. It does not matter whether or not one lives or dies; it matters how one lives or dies. And along those same lines, it does not matter whether or not one kills, especially one killing a being that is of a subordinate principial or intellectual degree (the gods killing humans, the kings killing untouchables, humans killing bugs); it matters how one kills, and in what name. In the Old Testament, God quite literally genocides all sinners; in esoteric prehistory, Atlantis is said to be ruined for the same reason: mass killing (of the uninitiated, telluric, terrestrial, and “lesser” man) in the name of a principial or civilizational rebirth. Sacrifices to the gods are more or less the same. The killing of an ontologically subordinate being by an ontologically superior being for the sake of the welfare of the superior being; or for the sake of the satisfaction of an ontologically superior, broader, and more holistic design; is not only tolerated, but often times deliberately carried out in Traditional civilizations.
You might invoke those civilizations that worshipped animals as a counter to the above point, but in those cases either one of two things was occurring: 1) The sanctification and sacralization of a terrestrial being, inverting Tradition and establishing an improper continuum, subordinating the humanly principle to the animalistic one, and ultimately confusing divinity with animalistic instinct and tellurism. 2) The animals were not worshipped for what they were, but because they acted in some kind of way which suggested that they were merely a symbol of a higher reality. The Ancient Egyptian worship of cats was because they were said to embody the divine light of Ra, not because they were sentient mammals, for example. Killing one would be sacrilege insofar as one was symbolically killing Ra, not for killing a cat.
To return to the earlier point, however, the killing of a lesser being by a greater being signifying an ontological elevation, was even symbolically dramatized through many initiation rites. In many myths there were malevolent gods that wiped out massive amounts of humans, but they were malevolent because they were naturally destructive in principle, not because humans died at their hands. On the other hand, there are also many myths in which many humans died at the hands of benevolent gods with no Karmic effect (to use the Vedic term) on the god.
Through the law of analogical correspondences, which is one of the strongest and most well substantiated ontological laws, the same principle applies when killing bugs: If one does it with a downwards orientation, they are acting negatively. If one does it with a horizontal orientation, to another horizontal or terrestrial being, [then] ontologically speaking, morally it is rather inconsequential. If it is done with an upwards orientation for the purpose of satisfying some kind of metaphysical impulse (not sure how killing a bug applies here, but whatever), then it is ultimately good. For the most part, killing a bug is horizontally oriented, unless one has taken upon themselves the task of spider genocide, which is more a waste of time than anything.
AT:
(replying to me) The elements which make homosexuality or polygamy “wrong” are in the fact that they cause suffering. If it were the case that neither of these things caused suffering, such as illegitimate children or disease, much of the ethical criticism of it would be absent. It is unskillful to engage [in] these things, but this is because it detracts from insight and abidance into the unestablished. A vagrant who lives a solitary life is defying the “default mode of being”, and his formality of living contrasts greatly to the householder. Is his lifestyle “wrong” in some intrinsic sense? Defying an established norm isn’t a criteria for ethics.
Praxius:
I think that’s a bit of a moralist take on account of homosexuality; what makes it wrong is that it is improper according to the Divine Paradigm or Divine Design, a disconnect between a principle and its manifestation, disunity of Essence and Substance, etc. The suffering it causes is a byproduct, and another reason for its moral wrongness, but moral wrongness has its seat and source in ontological incorrectness.
AT:
This position (AT’s position) isn’t that “If you have a good intention or wholesome intent” that you will always generate good Karma. It is highly unlikely you could murder an old woman in a wholesome mental state or intent. If so, this hypothetical person is psychopathic. This is already inherited misery or grotesque Hellish Karma, such that they have no real way out of delusion, ignorance and hatred, apathy, dullness, etc. We really want no Karma at all. Activity is inescapable and thus you use your intelligence and discernment adjudicated by Awareness. Snuffing out desire in ambitious or grand senses is the key here, as you won’t run into ethical dilemmas of “Is it wrong to prioritize myself over another in some such delusional undertaking?”, merely because there is no undertaking or controversy being given condition for contemplation.
You can speak of this Platonically oriented morality, but really the reason why anything is sought to be avoided is because it unbeloved. There is no real recognition of the abstract here; what compels us to call it wrong is in respect of its grotesqueness—our desire for it to not be of our own.
You can produce any kind of view or historical instance of God or any gods doing some such thin; what I am concerned with is escaping tragedy and fractured existence. Killing in any capacity does not sanction nor illuminate this.
Praxius:
There is most definitely an intellectual faculty and impulse that allows us to know an ontological impropriety as “wrong”, even before the moral question comes into play. We don’t want to devolve into humanism and say a thing is bad because we perceive it as gross. We perceive it as gross because we know it is bad.
Could you elaborate on the last point?
AT:
It’s not humanism at all. Rather, meta-ethical properties of normativity are inherently aesthetic. “Bad” art is that which fails to reach the supermundane; it does not elevate the spirit as such. Bad activities are similar, and this can be intuited or framed in the context of liberation. Platonic injunctions seemingly only obfuscate things in respect to this. There is no “reasoned-out” system of morality that exists independently from mental properties or evaluations; aesthetic properties are similar. Hence why I would redefine “good” as skillful and its inversion [as unskillful], and throw away the Western paradigm of abstract morality entirely.
There is neither goodness nor badness outside of the perceptive faculty. A major feature of ascension is realizing this: That phenomena in itself is neither good nor bad; it is inherently empty. This is especially applicable to sensations, wherein it is exhibited that some sensations are desirable or craved and others are not. Some people like the taste of hops in beer even though this is delusional and disgusting in my view; lifting weights technically causes pain and would be conventionally seen as “bad” [or] laborious, but its payoffs are immense. The spectrum of desired and undesired permeate morality and aesthetics, and the adept intend to be free of this entirely. Ultimate Reality in that way is completely free of merit and all controversy.
Praxius:
This is where our disagreement stems from, because for me all things must be first understood as abstracted from [their] experiential mode and understood first as principle prior to anything else. I do not see how that is an obfuscation of anything, and in fact I would say quite the opposite: That it is the establishment of a paradigm and a set of ontological laws, by which it can be determined that certain activities and activations are proper or improper, correct or incorrect, affirming or denying, from a position outside of all conditionality and subjectivity. By identifying the ontological framework and paradigm of Reality, we can determine that which is moral and immoral on a purely intellectual and non-perceptive basis just by examining principles. I would agree with your quote that there is neither goodness nor badness outside of the perceptive faculty, but there is correctness and incorrectness: Phenomena does not have to exist, but in any instance where it does, it must also be qualified in the Total Paradigm as either one or the other (as either correct or incorrect), and our perception of that allows us to discern whether or not it is good or bad.
AT:
How could it be that we can have a priori universal knowledge about volition without insight into causality? It seems to suggest we can have meta-ethical knowledge without perception.
Me:
(replying to AT’s “The elements which make homosexuality or polygamy ‘wrong’…” comment) By “default mode of Being” (the capital B is important here), I am referring not to social normativity, but to ontological propriety (i.e., the preordination of the alignment of all symbols with their archetypes, leading back to the First Archetype). Homosexuality, in being outside the human niche, and in obstructing the complimentary nature of male and female, is ontologically improper, even in cases where suffering or harm are absent. Predicating morality on something as mundane as a harm principle is dull and materialistic, in my opinion.
(replying to Praxius’ “I think that’s a bit of a moralist take…” comment)
This^
Praxius:
I would say we can, and do, have meta-ethical knowledge without perception, on the basis that we analogically correspond to the macrocosm, and by virtue of this we intuitively know ourselves through faculties and causes that are prior to perception. There are too many factors to qualify something on the basis of perception: Is a thing good for its property or good for its effect? Your weightlifting example demonstrates the uncertainty of this question quite well.
AT:
Suppose you imagine a homosexual relationship without carnality, [such as] advanced brotherly love, or even the phenomena of an androgynous person. What about this is violating the supposed and ambiguous “natural” or “preordained” laws? Evola speaks of androgyny in a negative light, but IE [Indo-European] people saw it superstitiously as a materialization of a non-dichotomous being, such as the Ennai of the Scythians.
Me:
(replying to AT’s “You can speak of this Platonically oriented morality,…”) On the contrary, homosexuality is grotesque BECAUSE it’s ontologically improper or “unnatural”. The unbeloved display is merely the symbol, and it is unnerving because this symbol is in disharmony from alignment with its respective archetype.
AT:
(replying to Praxius’ “I would say we can, and do, have meta-ethical knowledge…” comment) So, without any experience of cause and effect, without something present like volition and its open-ended determination of outcomes, there is knowledge of “right” and “wrong”? —that moral properties and knowledge precede self-consciousness or otherwise consciousness of arising and falling of phenomena?
Me:
(continuing) Humans are preordained to be a species of heterosexual engagements only. Defying our niche defies the principial humanely ordination.
AT:
Are you invoking “nature” here as terrestrial or otherwise? Something’s nature is the content of its identity—how something is. A fish on land is perplexing because its nature is to be a marine entity, but there isn’t any wrongness in a picture of a fish on a beach, or the perception of a fish on a beach.
Praxius:
(replying to AT’s “Suppose you imagine a homosexual relationship with carnality…” comment) Evola speaks of androgyny in a positive light, calling it the primordial status. Also, how could homosexuality exist without carnality? The sexual and carnal nature is implied; brotherly love would not fall under this category. The sexual nature has its own set of purposes and sources.
AT:
Something that is odd or unusual is not necessarily unethical. This is not a good criteria for ethics.
Praxius:
Would this not go against what you said earlier, that what is gross is wrong because it is gross?
AT:
You could love a man but just not engage sexually. Think of even something like asexuality, or someone disinterested entirely in it. Because humans are naturally sexual beings, is renouncing that or otherwise not responding to these urges “wrong”?
Is unusual or “odd” properly synonymous with “gross” or “grotesque”?
There are many perplexing pieces of art that are not gross or grotesque.
Praxius:
Although one could argue against their “sacrality” or beauty, tilting them one way or another.
Me:
(replying to AT’s “Are you invoking ‘nature’ here as…” comment) I’m shoehorning in the term “nature” to stand pro for ontologically propriety, but applying it to the telluric sphere, though really it is both macrocosmic and microcosmic.
AT:
We are invoking a lot of metaphysical nomenclature to get around addressing the central problem here, which is the actual criteria for wrongness or rightness in respect to phenomena. My proposal is that this is misleading, because it has no reference point. We are assuming wrongness and rightness on an essentiality of preordained created intention, not upon instrumentality or usefulness. Something is wrong or otherwise unskillful because it is “obstructional”, or otherwise hindering towards freedom. Dharma and adharma exist in respect to the end of Duhkha or conditionality, not in respect to phenomena being desirable, undesirable, conforming to norms or expectations, etc.
What I am most interested in is this alleged a priori knowledge of morality. We have only exhibited the Kantian schools suggesting this, but exclusively in reference to the categorical imperative, not to a preordainment of accorded things.
Me:
Actions can be harmful or obstructional without being immoral. A shark which accidentally beaches itself has brought great suffering upon itself, but it has not engaged in immoral or sinful activity. A man who accidentally burns down an occupied building, per your example, is not guilty of sin either. Instrumentality and usefulness evaluate effect, but Karmically speaking we know that intention (which precedes effect) is already of greater critical importance.
Praxius:
I am typing a message, but I will be doing it on my notepad on my PC and then copy-pasting it here.
Me:
(replying to AT’s “We are invoking a lot of metaphysical nomenclature…” comment) But there is a reference. The preordination of all things is Metaphysical Law itself. Its own reference point is the Universal Principle, which is its conditioning Source.
AT:
(replying to my “Actions can be harmful or obstructional without being immoral….” comment) The larger or more “complex analogy” is of a person who commits suicide or allows ignorance or haphazardness to take their life. This is unskillful with intent being involved; otherwise it’s unfortunate Karma, if unintentional.
There are latent suicides and immediate ones: allowing oneself to become sick or die is still suicide, and without any factor which makes it nullified (such as that being having perfected wisdom and merely terminating their body, e.g., Prayovapesa), it is usually wrought of passion or delusion.
Me:
I’m not denying the importance of intent. If anything, I agree with you. I’m merely arguing that it’s only half of the picture. One can be conceited into thinking that their actions are benevolent or morally good, while in actuality they are sinning. Probably the most potent example I could give of this would be bronze age civilizations sacrificing humans to the Divine, believing this to be a great honor for the Divine or even necessary to sustain the Divine, while in actuality they have sinned gravely by destroying human life.
AT:
Do you not acknowledge that ignorance is the confounding factor here?
This is why I am hesitant to invoke the word “God” or engage lofty ideas of metaphysics in respect to morality. I could have a false view, “delusion”, which is really non-knowledge that is accepted as such, and then tragedy results of it. This is also why desire, even a desire to be righteous, must be renounced, because these types of predicaments are intoxicating and obfuscate Awareness. With knowledge of the four noble truths, the beginning of suffering, its sustaining factors, and its ending, this picture becomes clear: there is entry into the deathless or drowning in the river. Controversies, metaphysics, first principles—these things are all hinderances. Even the predicament of doing or not-doing, the regret found in each, preponderance over the qualities of experience—all of this begets existence here or thereafter.
Praxius:
Let’s take a few basic premises as for granted:
- Reality is a priori
- Reality possesses what we have called the Quintessential Truth - a design according to which it does exist and must exist
- This Truth is Holistically Monadic: We can distinguish a universal Singularity that produces and incorporates a multiplicity, and we can see that this is procedurally occurring in a series of degrees from most simple and fundamental to most complex and conditional.
- There is an infinitude of possible bifurcations into Greater and Lesser modes that also exist in a series of degrees, beginning first with the most notable between the Metaphysical Domain (Quintessential Reality) and the Physical Domain (Substantial Reality).
- Quintessential Reality is the superior domain, in which there is no bifurcation or decoupling of Essence and Substance (Purusha).
- Substantial Reality is the subordinated domain, incorporated within the superior one, in which it is possible for Substance to misalign with Essence (Prakriti).
- This bifurcation also evokes a Greater mode of being (Essence-Substance alignment, Ontological Propriety, Archetypal Fulfillment, Initiated etc.) and a Lesser mode of being (Essence-Substance misalignment, Ontological Impropriety, Archetypal Neglect, Uninitiated etc.).
- There is a law of analogical correspondences: The principles and qualities possessed by principles of a higher and more universal domain translate, through a process of transposition and sequential integration, into the particulars that constitute a lower and more relative strata, meaning at each degree [that] the general structure of Reality is replicated over and over, while the principles themselves are of a more conditioned status.
- Through the law of analogical correspondences, the design and paradigm of Reality in its entirety exists to a lesser degree in conditioned beings, which means:
- -Every conditioned being has its own Quintessential Truth (we will keep the verbiage here to just suggest that every being has its own Essential Truth)—a design by which it does exist and must exist.
- -Every being is bifurcated into an indefinitude of Greater and Lesser modes, beginning first with the bifurcation between its metaphysical essence and its physical or substantial form.
- Every being is a microcosmic instantiation of the macrocosm.
- The most notable difference between the microcosm and the macrocosm is that the former is incorporated into the latter, but the latter is self-perpetuating
Now let’s make a few suggestions:
- Reality is aware of its own nature. (If either of you disagree with me on this, I will cave your skull in with a pickaxe.)
- The microcosmic and intellectual possession of the intuitive faculty of Reality, is one major factor that separates superior (and cognitive) beings from inferior beings.
- Humans possess this intuition.
With this being the case, how could one logically deny that we are intuitively understanding of Reality, including that which is correct vs that which is incorrect?
Also, if Reality is aware of its own nature, and we are microcosmically an instantiation of Reality itself, we are also aware of Reality’s nature and of that which is proper and improper according to its Quintessential Truth.
Praxius:
(replying to my “I’m not denying the important of intent….” comment) I would disagree with your last point here, because these sacrifices, it could be argued, did satisfy a metaphysical impulse; and because, as I said earlier, in Traditional civilizations, the view towards life possessing beings is rather neutral.
(replying to AT’s “You could love a man but not engage sexually….” comment) A misuse of sexuality is worse than making no use of it.
Making no use of it I would say is also inconsequential.
AT:
The point is that the violation of “nature” in terms of crass materiality isn’t necessarily a criteria for immorality. Not eating another human’s flesh or engaging in something like rape is hardly a condition for unethical condemnation, just as an extreme example.
Praxius:
I think the entirety of this argument could apply to every point of contention in this thread: The active renunciation of preordainment, archetypes, and so forth, is incorrect; to live without making use of them but not actively renouncing them or rejecting them is neutral (the man who has no kids, etc.); and living in accordance with them is correct. Also, I find it would be impossible, from our conditioned mode, to satisfy all of our preordainments: For the most part, we would die in a neutral state for most of them, but in this case we do not actively deny them or act defiantly of them.
AT:
So then, asceticism is “immoral”?
Praxius:
We might properly employ our intellectual faculty and disregard the use of our sensational faculty, as does the celibate ascetic.
Me:
Did I just lose connection to Discord?
(replying to AT’s “Do you not acknowledge that ignorance is the confounding factor…” comment) Precisely. And this is why I argue that the morality of an action can still exist independently of intention.
Praxius:
That does not make the ascetic immoral because he is not making misuse of his faculties; he is simply neglecting those which to him are unimportant.
(replying to my lost connection comment) Yes
AT:
You use the word “renounce”: Asceticism is abandoning the becoming or replicating faculties of “necessity” as you describe here.
Me:
(replying to Praxius’ “I would disagree with your last point here…” comment) But God condemns human sacrifice in the Old Testament, calling it an abomination.
AT
(continuing) Literally to abandon all of the world and all possible and impossible existences.
I would also contend that Reality in itself could be understood to be “a priori”, but this is an epistemic consideration rather than a metaphysical one. It a priori because it “precedes” perception (e.g., Awareness precedes consciousness or the activity of perception), but knowledge is inherently related to perception. A priori knowledge is mental perception of universals such as mathematics, just as an example.
Me:
Perhaps I should be more clear: The ascetic is not renouncing any kind of preordainment, archetype, or metaphysical impulse. He is renouncing his most carnal or corporeal faculties, which are of the horizonal mode, and to renounce these is to not make use of them, which is effectively neutral in regard to these faculties. In regards to those impulses which he does satiate, he is acting positively.
AT:
The traditional understanding of a priori knowledge is something like deduction; no empirical realm is required. What I am saying is that all knowledge, whether it is abstract or in terms of phenomena that is alleged to be external, is all “empirical”. Deduction even occurring at a non-cognitive level, [such as] the recognition of a brute fact, is still in the realm of the virtual and holographic.
Praxius:
(continuing) But the ascetic never actively improperly satiates an impulse. If he feels the need for sex, he does not engage with it improperly. He does not engage with it at all, which is more or less an apathy towards and disengagement with a lesser mode of being from a higher place at that point. It is no longer necessary.
AT:
He is renouncing all view [and] all knowledge as well—everything. He is reversing causality and invoking extinction.
Praxius:
But to what end, and satisfying which other impulse, and involving himself in which other reality? Apathetic renunciation of lesser realities is not the same as active renunciation of teleological preordainment: “I am not going to have sex so [that] I can more properly participate in God, and it is easy to fall to sin by engaging in sex,” is not the same renunciation as, “I am going to have sex with a man strictly to satisfy a carnal impulse even though I am a man.”
Praxius:
(replying to my “But God condemns huma sacrifice…” comment) God in the Old Testament is Henotheistic, but now I think we’re just getting into semantics.
Me:
(replying to Praxius’ “But to what end, and satisfying which other impulse…” comment)
I feel you nailed the source of the contention right here.
I’ll be back. I require food.
AT:
The major problem with this schema is that it is schematic. Truth is not a property of a system; it is Reality itself and its synonym. Axioms do not precede Awareness or unestablished consciousness in a Platonic way; they are the groundwork of existential manifestation and from it, laws or structures such as causality, duality, form, intellect, etc., emerge. Knowledge, thought, abstraction, or conventionality, do not precede perception; this is why Nibanna itself is not something which is known or really perceived. It would be beyond that. Spinoza, Hegel, Plato, even the Neoplatonic systems do not actually scratch the itch, because each instance of this is systematized. We are “assuming abstraction” as Reality, I feel. I do not feel as if Truth is a design because a design is inherently structural and conditioned, I think that’s the biggest reason I am not necessarily compelled here. We are saying much to prove that an abstract idea of divinity is present in the terrestrial or conditioned, but more so I want to move towards the idea that there is no condition, there is no microcosmic reality, and because of this, no macrocosmic reality either. We can have “true knowledge” about incorrect and correct actions, but this knowledge is conditional on dependent properties of volition, will, desire, intent, and their consequences or causal implications. In my understanding, adhering to a norm or an ordainment that is established is not freeing or otherwise liberating, and this is because the traditional understandings of morality and ethics exist for the wrong reasons. Truly the ascetic is as he is, because that awareness has expanded such that it can realize the futility of volitions, morality, and activity (consciousness); he is aiming towards its extinction, freedom from the ordainment of particular or conditioned things, not necessarily union with them. This is what draws a distinction between something like “God knowledge”, or “Universal consciousness” from the unconditioned. The knowledge of unity, unicity, and so on, is entrenched in relational properties. Monad and emanation, Absolute and relative, Ultimate and provisional—these are knowledges which make particulars exhaustive or explanatory in an inclusive sense. Conventionally, it is wrong to commit murder or kill, but ultimately? Even here do we see a different degree of ethical consciousness at the level of supreme beings or gods. Thus, this is why I am not sold on a universal Platonic morality derived from metaphysical hierarchies. Sentient beings will engage reality in ignorance, delusion, and desire. It would seem to be compelling to say that this mode of existence is “wrong”, but [it] is merely how things are. Agnosis is required for existential manifestation. Hence why I say that there is liberation, freedom, or clarity; and hinderance, obfuscation, and ignorance. The qualities and mental states associated with the former are skillful; the latter, unskillful. Basically, morality without insight or meditation will compel causality to develop in a wholesome or desirable way, but this is not victory over the conditioned—victory over causality and becoming. This is not to say that it does not result in a good life or otherwise in desirable rebirths, but the scope or goal is far beyond it—off the scale, outside of ordainment or even principles and lesser truths. Thus, in that way, adhering to morality, observances or customs is not exhaustive.
Me:
I just don’t see it this way. To me (and I imagine Praxius would entirely agree here), Reality is internally structured, like a body, with an established preordainment present at every level. The Absolute is merely the Context for all this to occur in, but it occurs regardless, being signicated upon its Source in self-subsistent fashion. You seem to be invoking the idea that morality is based exclusively on the skillfulness of actions with regard to their causalities, but even before adopting Praxius’ teaching on ontological propriety, I had independently concluded that morality is based on alignment with “Nature” or “Existence” in its default state.
Praxius:
(replying to AT) I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with any of this except for its context. At every instance of conditioning there is a system to be applied, and this system is universally identified as a series of descending steps according to the framework I outlined earlier. At the apex of this series of principles is true Unconditionality, Universality, etc., and this cannot be systemized and may only be understood as Truth. From a conditioned position there are an indefinitude of proper ways to access and interface with this highest reality, but that doesn’t negate the fact that there is a multilayered and systemic structure to Reality in its conditional degrees. Even Vedic philosophy understands this. In fact, this is found in every Traditional civilization, not just in Platonic terms.
Me:
I think with this in mind, we’ve more or less reached the end of the debate—or at least as far as we can get. We have exhausted our viewpoints and identified where we differ. This has been a fascinating debate, but I don’t think either side has or can be compelled here.
Praxius:
(continuing) What you seem to be doing is looking down from the highest perspective and saying that the lesser modes do not matter. I agree. But we are not in the highest mode, and so when concerning things from our position, including access to this higher mode, the system and structure of Reality is real until we reach the Monad at which point it doesn't even matter.
From your position down-looking from the highest point, I also would agree that morality is subjective, which is why I never reference morality unless it is directly linked to praxis and vertical integration. But that vertical axis is there; it is real until we ascend so high that we find out that it was all illusory. It’s like, might I suggest, a Roblox obby, where once you reach the top you don’t ever have to toil and parkour again because you can fly so it doesn’t even matter. But to reach that point you have to climb the very real steps.
Me:
You put into words what I could not! @AT I highly respect you and your words. However, I will agree with Praxius’ criticism here: When it comes to discussions on that which is occurring in provisional reality, such as teleology or morality, you tend to negate such, pointing to the fact that its ultimate signication or reference is null since Ultimate Reality is empty. While this may be the case in an ultimate sense, it is not practical for interfacing with that which is present to us in the provisional or empirical world. I find a bottom-up understanding has more application than a top-down one.
AT:
(replying to my “I just don’t see it this way….” comment) I cannot discern a nature or essence that is not itself empty. I think the problem with Platonic considerations is that it sees substantiality at every level of Reality and suffers because it overflows in this respect. Whereas I see it as empty, and I stress further that it’s not an abstraction of emptiness as self or as a metaphysical hypothesis, more [like] the nullification of formal metaphysics entirely. There are constructive substantialist forms of non-duality like Hinduism, and then there are deconstructive non-dualities. The former is substantialist and the latter is processes-oriented. There isn’t an intrinsic essence to things that is not abjectly general, and because it is general it is not concrete in the way that we want to think it is. This contrasts more starkly to a metaphysical object that we can gleam or infer principles or ideality from, and thus I am having a difficult time with seeing an inherent nature to phenomena or maximal phenomena. The entire idea is to get out of phenomenal or abstractive conditions. In terms of an essential condition of something like morality, none can be discerned but other dependent and transitory properties. Intrinsicism, or “objectivism”, for a better description, faces great problems: Existence and nature in its default or “essential state” is completely unconditioned, and thus a morality that is extrapolated from it is one that reverses or otherwise removes conditions that cloud or obfuscate it. Getting too invested in an idea of what we may call “Svabhāva” is dangerous for practice because it opens the door for self-view. Ultimate Reality’s intrinsic nature is “not self”, non-particularness, thus its only moral feature if we had to discern it would be selflessness. “What is the reality of things just as it is? It is the absence of essence. Unskilled persons whose eye of intelligence is obscured by the darkness of delusion conceive of an essence of things and then generate attachment and hostility with regard to them.” Hence why I said earlier that when we do this kind of thing, we slip into the worldview or predicament of the uninstructed worldling who seeks one out of many or one over another. More or less, I have to ask, what it is here that you consider to be “nature” or “existence”, that is not qualified or identified by causes and conditions? I feel as if only an arbitrary or self-referential answer can be given, and this also ties into the semantic outlining or sanctification of “meaning” or teleology. I don’t think the determining factor here is external or substantial such that it has independence. What independent factor determines or “designs” phenomena, [other than] causality itself?
Me:
By Nature or Existence, with a capital N and E, I am referring to that preordination of Reality which begins with the Universal Principle and conditions its way down. Because the Universal Principle can be called the First Cause or the Proper Cause, it is somewhat self-subsistent and acts as the Source which all inferior symbols are predicated or signified upon. While the Universal Principle is not independent in the way that the Absolute is, it is the “first child” of the Absolute, representing a transition from unqualified Unicity to qualified Universality. Because we are working at the provisional or empirical level of Reality, we are working with a qualified structure and its internal operations. Morality and teleology are both qualified phenomenologies, and thus it is fitting to speak of them with reference to a qualified system. As I’ve said, I believe our ultimate contention is that you are looking from the top-down or from the ultimate perspective, while Praxius and I are looking from the bottom-up. I’m suspicious that it’s angle of perspective, more than anything.
Can you define “Svabhāva”, by the way? I haven’t seen that term before.
[We paused for the night after this.]
Part II
AT:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhava
Likely what you consider to be the Quintessential Reality.
Me:
Seems as much.
AT:
(“Emptiness” by Ajahn Punnadhammo)
(“Girimananda II - Perception of Not-Self” by Ajahn Punnadhammo)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
The insight here is that this alleged essence is actually emptiness; there isn’t an independent nature to conditioned things. Because of this abandonment of nature, we move into identity almost exclusively.
Me:
Again, all of Reality can be called empty when viewed from the ultimate or top-down POV. But “inside” the provisional world, these essential realities are persistent, such that even you have admitted that it’s not simply “metaphysics or nominalism”, but rather that each philosophy holds weight to it.
This is just circling back to vantage points again. You’re going from the top-down; I’m going from the bottom-up.
AT:
The reason that there are universal particulars and particular universals is because they are stratified in transitory contexts though.
Me:
I’m not denying that.
AT:
I’m more or less suggesting that there is not a top-down or bottom-up metaphor to be made here.
Me:
But that isn’t practical when we are living a conditioned existence right now. You desire to separate yourself from the provisional world or Maya, but you are a product of that conditioned illusion of telluric existence right now.
AT:
I am not necessarily convinced here that there is a First Cause or First Mover, and even if there was, it inheres in an acausal reality which is really what I’m trying to outline or signify here.
Me:
Again, I agree.
The First Cause or Source is contingent upon an acausal Context.
AT:
You are concerned with moralities in respect to sanctioning more existence or otherwise having a higher degree of consciousness. It’s as if we are trying to rationalize an ethic for lay life such that we treat it as eternal or desirable in itself.
You have 5-10 precepts and Patimoka. What need is there for Platonic extrapolation? I genuinely still cannot understand what value this sanctifies.
Me:
(replying to AT’s “You are concerned with moralities in respect to sanctioning…” comment) Because we are presently living in the causality or Samsara as we speak. Rationalizing contingent or dependent phenomenologies in this context, which are themselves causal, seems perfectly logical in my view. Why would I need to concern myself with the ultimate unitary emptiness of everything if that only hinders our ability to speak on what is occurring within the framework of conditioned reality? An obsession with emptiness which seeks to dissect and erode all foundations or sanctions feels more or less nihilistic in aim and effect.
(replying to AT’s last question) The value it sanctions is structural, providing an analogy as to how provisional reality “ticks”—how it proceeds and operates.
The precepts and Patimoka, from my understanding, are simply lists of actions which one should not undertake. But what is a guide for moral tenants if it has no substantiation—an actual empirical basis for morality, the “why” and “how” actions are deemed one way or another? The Platonic framework supplies just this.
AT:
Think of ethics in the Western consideration of description and normativity. Something is objectively permissible or impermissible because of things such as volition or free will, because there is a capacity to choose one reality over another. One reality is more desirable or otherwise possesses a meta-ethical signifier of goodness as opposed to badness. Discounting an emotivist criticism of this, we can still see that freedom here is instrumental. Why is the same not true for systematized ethics? It’s as if we are presently believing that there is some kind of pre-existent property of goodness or badness that we align the mind and intent to. These properties exist because of activity, volition, and intent, not independently. In that way, morality and its properties are means, the end being ascension. Dwelling in morality in this way is only that much more nuanced than abiding in ideology; with these formalities we are in some senses ensnared. Responsibility or will exists in respect to the spirit; there isn't some specified doer of actions that reaps the fruit of their activity.
(replying to my “if it has no substantiation—an actual empirical basis for morality” comment”) The empirical answer is sufficiently outlined as the further continuation of a separate consciousness or existence that is insatiable.
(replying to my “because we are presently living in the causality…” comment) Are you in denial that this empty formless self is your actual identity? This is the contention here and I’m not sure if you’re grasping things in terms of actual insight. This is why the metaphysics here are not skillful.
(replying to my “The value it sanctions is structural,…” comment) So is that value just merely a “good” life?
Me:
(replying to AT’s “Think of ethics in the Western consideration…” comment) The “systemized ethics” that Praxius and I are advocating for is not discounting of freedom. Rather, we see freedom as that which is permitted horizontally, wherein as beings become more composite, they accrue more relative properties, and thus can be skewed from proper alignment or archetypal fulfillment. In this way, freedom is the means, but whether the action undertaken results in ontological propriety, informs us of its moral value. You seem to be under the assumption that this idea of morality is predicated on human value, but it is here taken more so as an effect of a “mechanized” structure of Reality and is thus merely descriptive rather than personally conceited..
Praxius:
Not to mention that this freedom also exists horizontally at the highest-most degree, and that true freedom in the degree of The One can only be achieved by ascension. If ascension is possible, then there is a vertical degree to reality; if there is a vertical degree, then there is a structure.
(replying to AT’s “Are you in denial that this empty formless self…” comment) I’m not denying this. All I’m saying is that reducing everything to this emptiness is not a useful approach when we are strictly interfacing with provisional elements. It invokes the same frustration as when we encounter a nihilist who insists on chiseling every foundation away until there is only abject nothingness. It removes any opportunity for productive assessment or description of conditioned phenomena.
I still believe that our contention is less on philosophy and more on approach. I think we actually agree on more than we disagree.
Praxius:
I mean a translatability between Platonism, Egyptian Traditionalism, Hinduism, the Iranian Tradition, etc. and their relative theologies and philosophies is possible for a reason.
AT:
(replying to my “The ‘systemized ethics’ that Praxius and I are advocating for…” comment) So, your morality is inherently hypothetical?
Me:
(replying to Praxius’ “Not to mention that this freedom…” comment)
Although, the freedom of the One is of a different “type”, if we are being honest. The One determines preordination, but the freedom of lesser beings occurs within the bounds or context of preordination.
AT:
(continuing) Related to a schematic of Reality rather than contact with that Reality in itself?
Me:
I’d argue that it’s structural and analytical.
The schematic is merely descriptive of Reality as it is in the microcosm, no different than how a physical model describes a physical system.
I suppose you could call it an analogue.
AT:
(replying to my “I’m not denying this….” comment) You’re not understanding, and this is the criteria of delusion or false knowledge. There are many unanswerable and speculative features here. For example, is there some intentional and preordained manner in which one must wear their hair or their clothing in this system? —normatively speaking and extrapolated upon the “intrinsic” or Platonic structures of existence? You can rationalize cruelty quite easily with this understanding as well, as we are engaging metaphysical yardsticks in regards to the alleged Platonic and intrinsic definition of “human” or “humanness”, or even the criteria of sentience or consciousness—which in an earlier discussion, was demarcated with scientific and material qualifications. I don’t think this is exhaustive or even useful to anyone that would adopt it.
(replying to my “The schematic is merely descriptive...” comment) But we are falling into the predicament of suggesting that phenomena and physicality have a certain intentional way that it’s supposed to be. How can you discern this?
Think of even something like technology: Is technology immoral or otherwise “unnatural”? Is there some fixed and eternal way in which the eternal human essence is supposed to be statically speaking?
How could you know?
(replying to my “The ‘systemized ethics’ that Praxius and I are advocating for…” comment) Does “ontological” propriety relieve or prevent suffering? If not, what is actually ascertained by living in this mode of thinking or being instructed by it?
Praxius:
I would say yes it does.
Me:
I would actually argue that yes, there is a morally desirable way to wear one’s hair. We find that Jesus condemns men who wear their hair long like a woman, and condemns women who wear it short like a man. The principle at hand here is to not distort the symbolic expression of the masculine and feminine archetypes. In the same way, clothing is also a symbol, and one who wears slutty clothing or cross-dresses is guilty of improper praxis, as they are not properly fulfilling the humanely archetype.
AT:
(replying to my “I’m not denying this….” comment) It seems to me that we are frustrated because it doesn’t permit us to extrapolate or gleam anything from it. In that way, you have security invested and designated in the intelligible. Attachment to intellect or discernment is not real refuge, and this is seen by the fact that it results in indefinite contradiction or bewilderment in respect to further augmentation.
Me:
You’ve posted a lot of replies. Please pause for a moment so that I can read and reply.
AT:
(replying to my comment about Jesus and hair) I find that to be rather ridiculous and neurotic. If long hair doesn’t cause one any suffering or diminish the consciousness of another, what is the grounds for saying it is “immoral”?
Say I buy a bike made for women because its seats are larger and don’t cause me hip pain, is that “improper ontological praxis”?
Praxius:
I feel like this is deliberately missing the point.
Me:
(replying to AT’s “You’re not understanding, and this is the criteria of delusion or false knowledge…” comment) Cruelty can be rationalized circumstantially, which I don’t think you would disagree with. An honorable warrior fulfills his symbolic duty, but a serial killer misuses the symbol violence for unnatural or improper ends. You are right in your criticism that determining what is archetypal and properly “human” can be difficult to gauge, but it is by no means impossible to sit down and assess what is preordained of us according to such factors as our niche and spiritual ordainment.
(Please continue pausing. I have to reply to a lotta stuff here.)
AT:
(replying to Praxius’ “I feel like this is deliberately missing the point.” comment) Because the locution here is one of concealed sexual perversion. We can see fathers who allow their daughters to paint their nails, doing something similar, but no crass element of sexual perversion is present.
Thus, what makes it wrong has nothing to do with some idea of a masculine principle being violated lmao.
Me:
(replying to AT’s “But we are falling into the predicament of suggesting that phenomena…” comment) One way we can know what is considered the “default mode of Being”, is through visuals. A cross-dresser offends us because they create a dysphoria between their own self and their gender’s archetype. Macrocosmically, we might assess how at the end of each Iron Age or Kali Yuga, God Himself has to step in to manually re-align all things with His ideal in what can be characterized as a sudden restorative process.
(replying to AT’s “Does ‘ontological’ propriety relieve or prevent suffering?” comment) It certainly does. A man who lives according to all the duties and virtues prescribed to him by his archetype, will live a wholesome and fulfilling life.
(replying to AT’s “It seems to me that we are frustrated…” comment) Could it not also be argued that you yourself have an attachment and investment in your own understanding of morality? This debate is only possible because we each have a position, a view, a motivation, and logical tools with which to argue.
(replying to AT’s “I find that to be rather ridiculous and neurotic…” comment) I don’t believe that suffering is a good criteria for gauging morality. When a drug addict suffers in rehab, he is not sinning or accumulating negative Karma, is he? He has renounced his drug abuse and made the morally correct decision in doing so, but he suffers more greatly as a result.
(replying to AT’s “Say I buy a bike…” comment) This would depend upon whether that bike looks feminine and whether you bought it with the intention of looking feminine. If your intention is to contradict your own masculinity, then yes, you have sinned.
AT:
Yet why is it on the other hand amusing or humorous when men wear dresses or something stupid like lipstick at weddings or otherwise in some display of ridiculousness? Actors will do these things experimentally, usually in comedies, but unless you’re willing to take the position that actors and artists all go to Hell because they arouse passion of some kind or another in their audience, this would be a hard case to make. Something like blackface is funny because they are essentially stressing the features of other races in an exaggerated way. Does this violate an intrinsic essence of “blackness” and “whiteness”? Even in ancient stage plays where women were not allowed to be in theater or drama, is that itself intrinsically immoral? Were they “trooning out”? Irony or contradiction is not necessarily a criteria for immorality. A being born intersex: Is that being in essence “immoral”? I had said earlier that there is some element of disgust or “not wantingness” in respect to the closeness to these things—that it is undesired or pushed away, but in itself, outside of its proximity or inclusion with self, it would be difficult to actually determine it to be independently unethical.
Praxius:
You have just stated the reason: to poke fun or take a lighthearted comedic approach is not the same as to completely identify with it.
Are you saying that crossdressing is morally good then?
AT:
So writing, reading, taking care of animals or children, engaging contemplative activities: immoral or sinful? Renouncing excessive ambitions is “sinful”? Renunciation and compassion are profoundly feminine.
(replying to Praxius’ “Are you saying that crossdressing is morally good then?” comment) It’s really irrelevant. Say you’re a man who designs women’s fashion: Is that immoral?
Praxius:
That’s not the same. If I am a man, and I express myself as a woman, is that immoral? If it is not, why should transgenderism be outlawed/shunned/discouraged?
Me:
The point of comedy is to deride, and generating dysphoria or illogical displays is humorous because it is ontologically ridiculous. The sin isn’t there, however, because acting is not a conviction in the same way that true cross-dressing or trans-racialism is. My position is that intention is still of importance, but because it informs us as to what archetype the symbol is ritualistically communicating with. I should probably expand upon this in the future.
(replying to AT’s “So writing, reading, taking care of animals…” comment) I would disagree that these are exclusively masculine or feminine activities. One sex may be predisposed to partaking in them more often, but they are ultimately androgynous or asexual acts.
AT:
(replying to Praxius’ “That’s not the same. If I am a man,…” comment)
Because it usually invokes sexual or predatory practices. In itself I don’t really care nor concern myself with men who are effeminate or women who are masculine. We are invoking an image of someone who desires something like communism and endless techno-futurist buttsex dystopia here when considering these problems. Gender is metaphysical, and allegedly so is race. Men can be born in feminine bodies and vice versa; dark skinned races can be born in the bodies of Aryans as well. These qualifying factors are inherently illusionary.
Praxius:
Exceptions to the rule don't negate the rule. It is not often that men are born into women’s bodies and that Aryans are born into swarthy ones. It’s possible, but unlikely, and should be dealt with case by case in these instances. Are you insinuating that non-sexual transgenderism is morally permissible?
AT:
(replying to my “I would disagree that these are exclusively masculine or feminine activities…” comment) So now we have the even more grotesquely difficult undertaking of outlining the definitions and criteria of each. Do you see now where I’m coming from? That, next to none of this is readily apparent and most of your qualms are in respect to intention in relationship to unwholesomeness, not that phenomena itself?
(replying to Praxius’ “Exceptions to the rule…” comment) You have a man that does nothing but take care of children or animals because he’s an eunuch or something. Born intersex, like the Ennai. What is “immoral” about this?
The visceral grotesqueness is always invoked at sexuality and sodomy.
Me:
Men cannot be born in feminine bodies. The identification with a gender identity is one that is social and that occurs no earlier than the age of 2 with the refined ego-ideal and ideal-ego. The liberals are correct in this regard that gender is a construct, but it is a construct which derives from sex and that which is prescribed to the sexes. Creating a dysphoria between real self (biological) and ego (mental identity) is simply that: dysphoria. It is improper praxis.
AT:
(replying to my “The point of comedy is to deride,…” comment) Suppose a black person in a hood or something desires to be “white”, e.g., desires to be clean, efficient, to defer gratification, to have some kind of serious family unit that isn’t matriarchal and related to the pursuit of sensuality at all times. Is that a contradiction in the form of violating his intrinsic “[blackness]”? Such that he should accept the crab-in-the-bucket attitude of endless gangbanging and racial resentment until his end? Lmfao?
Me:
(replying to AT’s “You have a man that does nothing but take care…” comment) It’s not immoral to exist in a mutilated or defective body, but it is immoral to mutilate one’s body. People born intersex have to contend with an unfavorable reality which is bad latent Karma.
(replying to AT’s comment on blacks in the hood) They should solve their dilemma by striving to be the upmost echelon of “black”. Plenty of black people attain successful and clean lives, but almost none of them identify as “white”.
Praxius:
(replying to AT’s “You have a man that does nothing but take care…” comment) That’s not what I said though. What if he was not born intersex and declared that he was decidedly a woman, and that if you insisted that he was a man you were incorrect?
AT:
(replying to my “Men cannot be born in feminine bodies….” comment) I’m not saying that there is some need to remove traditional gender norms or something like this. This is a metaphysical question about the qualification of these alleged distinct essences.
Me:
The masculine and feminine can be abstracted all the way back to the relationship between the masculine Creator and feminine Generator—the “two Ones”. I would say this is a heavy substantiation.
AT:
(continuing) In that latter part you say that creating dysphoria between the body and sense of self is improper praxis, but this is a factor of dispassion, recognizing oneself as not the body. It is false to say that the true self is feminine because the true self is neither masculine or feminine, but you seemingly have a strong desire for mental identification with particularity and its nature, wherein contradiction and unexpectedness in this field or context is actually often times skillful means. Paradox and irony is usually that which outlines Ultimate Reality most effectively, especially in the realm of metaphysics, of logic, and hermeneutics.
Me:
I feel though as if we have become off track. We’re dissecting a lot of examples but not ultimately compelling one another.
Recognizing oneself as not the body is actually a prescription I offer as a way out of gender dysphoria. But my point is that dysphoria erupts in people who are invested in mental and social identity.
AT:
(replying to my “I feel though as if we have become off track….” comment) I feel that it is the case that this moral ideology, no matter of its decent intention, is not exhaustively prepared to handle or nullify controversy as I have listed here. Hence why this began with the premise that much of its nuances result in unanswerable predicaments.
(replying to my “Recognizing oneself as not the body is actually a prescription…” comment) Correct, but you are seemingly among that latter camp without recognizing it, because of essentialism in the realm of ethics and metaphysics.
Me:
(replying to AT’s “I feel that it is the case that this moral ideology,…” comment) But we’ve been supplying answers at every turn.
(replying to AT’s “Correct, but you are seemingly among that latter camp…” comment) Because I am a human in the flesh on Earth right now. My present conditioned existence is one of masculinity.
AT:
(replying to my “The masculine and feminine can be abstracted…” comment) The mythos never outlines Uranus nor Gaia as creators. The first generation of celestial beings emerged from their union. They were the first beings wrought of Chaos. No creator or creation mythos is actually present, and in the Abrahamic tradition, creation is exclusively the work of the masculine.
Me:
I’m speaking to principial theology here. The Absolute “gives and takes charge” and the Universal “receives and subordinates”. This is the first demonstration of the key underpinnings in masculine-feminine dynamics.
AT:
Why do you qualify the absolute as masculine when you know good and well that is unconditioned? I feel as if the point here is being missed completely and utterly.
Me:
Superimposition or exegesis, not qualification.
AT:
Say what one means.
Me:
Apologies. I am superimposing masculinity onto the Absolute and femininity onto the Universal, or extrapolating these concepts therein, in a mystified way, in order to demonstrate how we can see a dominant-subordinate dynamic present at every level of Reality—this being expressed likewise in the relationship and dynamics between the two sexes.
Praxius:
(replying to AT’s “I feel that it is the case that this moral ideology,…” comment) It seems to me, first off, that you’re misunderstanding our point. We understand the nuance. The invocation of the term “ideology” here is improper because we do not dogmatically subscribe to the thesis of, “There is one masculine way, one feminine way, one Aryan way, etc., and you must subscribe to only this one particular way or otherwise it’s ontologically improper.” What we are saying is that a number of these conditioning factors determine the identity of the conditioned person, and only by affirming these archetypes, or by directly accessing the highest reality as in the case of proper lefthand pathers, can one truly transcend. You can passively and ascetically renounce these conditions from a higher point, but you cannot actively refute them or negate them on their own degree.
Beyond this, I don’t see much consistency in the framework you are outlining. At the point where these issues become questionable, we don’t examine the same examples. Suffering cannot be the only basis for morality, and you have said it yourself, because to induce suffering to eventually achieve a productive or positive end, such as working out, is not a moral negative. Suffering is a symptom, not a diagnosis. We can artificially remove a perceived suffering through improper affirmations (coping, taking drugs, etc.).
It seems that you don’t believe in ontology (a structure of Reality) whatsoever, and on this basis you deny that experiential reality is real. From an esoteric perspective this is true, but if none of this is real then why should we not just appeal to the carnal pleasures of the masses and live in a dopamine high for the rest of our lives? There’s no perceived suffering in that. If your basis for negative morality is grotesqueness, [then] what if you find something grotesque that I do not? There’s too much nuance to not have a universal vision—not of “right and wrong”, but of “correct and incorrect”, impersonal, isolated, and removed from the world of contingency.
AT:
(replying to my “Apologies. I am superimposing masculinity…” comment) And how does that actually help you discern reality? Do you see why I say that we are choosing to assume abstraction as reality and that I am suspicious that you are overly attached to the intellect? So, do you see femininity as inferior and masculinity as superior here? In what way do these admitted artifices actually help you?
Praxius:
I would ask you to affirm something. What is the basis of your system of morality; what is the nature of Reality? Why is something moral and something not? Our basis of morality on proper praxis is just another way of saying our basis of morality is in Dharmic activities. It’s the same meaning, expressed differently. If that’s not the basis for morality, I’m not sure what can be.
AT:
(replying to Praxius’ “It seems to me, first off, that you’re misunderstanding...” comment) Suffering is not sensational in a contingent way; Duhkha literally means “incompleteness, unsatisfactoriness”. In that way, yes, the ending of incomplete realities is the only inspirational criteria for meta-ethics.
Suffering is that which we cannot accept. The point of making that argument was to outline that simply because there are imposed ideas of badness onto sensations doesn’t make it inherently so. There is no intrinsic essence to that.
Praxius:
(continuing) And along these lines I would also say that there are “degrees” of correctness, kind of like a gradient. It’s not black or white: yes or no?
So, what is the basis of morality?
AT:
(replying to Praxius’ “And along these lines…” comment) Then how are they eternal?
They’re not. That’s the entire point I’m making. Moral properties do not inhere in an abstract immortality.
Praxius:
You can gauge the contingent through an eternal structure and framework.
Me:
Oh finally, the debate’s getting interesting again.
Praxius:
Alright, then why is something right and wrong?
AT:
I have outlined this several times now, I feel.
Praxius:
Why are some activities Dharmic and produce positive Karma and others do the opposite? On what basis?
You have made allusions, but I don’t feel the outline is sufficient to encompass the totality of possible activity.
AT:
(links back to his own “We are invoking a lot of metaphysical nomenclature...” comment)
Me:
(replying to AT’s “And how does that actually help you discern Reality?...” comment) Masculinity is empirically superior. Men as a collective can exist independently of women, but the reverse is not true. All dichotomies are hierarchical.
AT:
(replying to Praxius’ You can gauge the contingent through an eternal structure or framework.” comment) I don’t think there is an eternal structure to the beginningless suffering aside from dependence, causes, and conditions.
(replying to my “Masculinity is empirically superior….” comment) How can masculinity have independent existence?
Me:
(replying to AT’s “I don’t think there is an eternal structure…” comment) Conditionality adheres to a structural sequence of conditioning factors.
(replying to AT’s “How can masculinity have independent existence?” comment) Independent in the material sense.
AT:
(replying to my “Conditionality adheres to a structural sequence of conditioning factors.” comment) But this is not substantial. It is not eternal.
Praxius:
(replying to AT’s “We are invoking a lot of metaphysical nomenclature...” comment) So, you believe things are correct and incorrect on the basis that they obstruct freedom? You define freedom as being free from Samsara and spiritual liberation akin to some kind of apotheosis (participation in the Quintessential Reality). On this basis, achieving freedom would be to have a skillful spiritual mastery (proper praxis). I don’t see where the contention lies.
Me:
(replying to AT’s “But this is not substantial….” comment) It’s sanctioned by the Eternal.
AT:
(replying to my “Independent in the material sense.” comment) So, men can exist without needing women to be their reproductive or material basis? Is this why every lasting ancient society treated women as an invaluable resource and enslaved them? — their culture and tradition hinging on them to perpetuate it? This is becoming rather strained and far-fetched.
Praxius:
He means that men can organize and participate in social institutions without needing women involved at all, whereas the opposite is not possible whatsoever.
Me:
What I mean is that a group of men could survive on their own indefinitely. A group of women could not.
(replying to Praxius) Yes.
AT:
(replying to Praxius’ “So, you believe things are correct and incorrect on the basis…” comment) On extinction, not on superior or elevated existences.
Praxius:
How do you define extinction?
Me:
He’s referring to Sunyata.
AT:
(replying to my “What I mean is that a group of men could survive…” comment) Entire cultures of men died out when their women were raped or otherwise acquired by enemies. There is no masculine without feminine, and this is again, as I said, a rejection of causation.
(replying to my “He’s referring to Sunyata.” comment) Not even.
Because you will conceive of this again as a metaphysical object.
(replying to Praxius’ “He means that men can organize and participate in social institutions…” comment) When this occurs such as the military, prison, piracy, often times hyper-masculinity is the result and is an unwholesome extreme. This is not compelling. Mythos suggests that Brahman or the masculine principle is obfuscated by the feminine principle of Maya, but we see this inverted many times, in Shaktism, Taoism, and even mystery cults and so on. This is not evidence that there is some true and real independent masculinity, either provisionally or ultimately.
AT
(replying to Praxius’ “How do you define extinction?” comment) “The adept neither takes up existence here or thereafter.”
Me:
Those examples are of a lesser mode, a degeneration, of proper masculinity, which we call Titanic masculinity.
AT:
Existence as it is configured arises on dependence with factors, causes, and conditions. Enlightenment or the progression of the spiritual path is reversing this, and bringing an end to the perpetuating of Karma. Causality and the ordainment is totally escaped. This escape is not to any place or locality; it is completely unestablished, and the unestablished is not essential. This is what I mean by “essentialism”: There is nothing being ascertained or acquired because that reality is “not self”—not of any particular kind or quality. That is what “unconditioned” means: without causality, without becoming, potential with all allocated possibilities and proclivities never being actualized.
Me:
We can conceive of existences which are more conditioned or less conditioned. This is the basis of ontologically “inferior” and “superior” existences, respectively. The Absolute or Extinction is deemed the most superior for the simple reason that it is the only unconditioned existence. This is all semantics. I don’t think we disagree on the “meat” here. Only the vocabularies which we use to communicate such, differ.
But with that said, can we please terminate this debate? I’m incredibly exhausted. We’ve been at this for like four hours today.
I really don’t know what else can be said at this point by either side, that hasn’t been said already.
AT:
I think we have two radically different understandings or assessments, to be honest. The Absolute isn’t a supremely subtle mental formation. Less conditioned and more conditioned—there is only unconditioned and independent reality, and conditioned reality: Absolute and relative, Ultimate and conventional. All mental formations are conventional.
AT:
“It seems that you don’t believe in ontology (a structure of Reality) whatsoever, and on this basis you deny that experiential reality is real. From an esoteric perspective this is true, but if none of this is real then why should we not just appeal to the carnal pleasures of the masses and live in a dopamine high for the rest of our lives? There’s no perceived suffering in that. If your basis for negative morality is grotesqueness, [then] what if you find something grotesque that I do not? There’s too much nuance to not have a universal vision—not of ‘right and wrong’, but of ‘correct and incorrect’, impersonal, isolated, and removed from the world of contingency.”
I think that this is a perfect point to outline: It is absolutely true I do not believe in metaphysics, because truth isn’t a symbol. There aren’t metaphysics because there is no physical or condition to begin with, and we fall into the world of interpretation and view when we begin to complicate and add things. All metaphysics are really about the nuances of perception. If life’s meaning is tied up into analysis and spiritual arithmetic, nihilism seeps in much easier because in true reality we are living for effigies of the Spirit rather than allowing the Spirit to command us. Hence, “renunciation”. The reason that sense-pleasure or hedonism is useless is because it serves nothing; it doesn’t take us anywhere. Sense-craving does lead to suffering, because there is possession of “good” or desirable experiences, the falling away or impermanence of this experience, and then craving for its return. This process is never-ending because all mental formations or experiences are empty. This process has been going on forever, in some form or another, and no instance of it is gratifying. This is because no phenomena is eternal. In some senses, metaphysics are a kind of abstract sensuality, as there is clear craving involved with this, such that we are creating a position, becoming attached to that position, and then suffering when poverties arise in that system. Realization is knowing that all metaphysics are going to have these problems because they are instantiations of the Truth, reified instances of the Truth, not that Truth itself. View and perception is only so skillful and must be abandoned at a certain point. Even Dharma itself is compared to a raft that one must abandon once they have crossed to the shore on yonder. I feel as if this subtle implication, that not having an idealized set of principles or universal “vision” necessarily results in the relinquishing of nobility, demonstrates the inherent weakness and hopelessness of metaphysics, theology, or view—that without discernible effigies, the gloves basically come off. Nobility or ethical reality is not cultivated because we are going to get something from it, but for itself and by itself. Hence, “acting from the Spirit, for the Spirit”.
The point is to be completely free of all craving and all illusion—all false reality. Even our most closely held attachments, beliefs, identities, thoughts, attitudes, or conditions, must be renounced and rejected—not because of something extrinsic in terms of them being “immoral” or wrong, but because this process or activity leads to suffering. This suffering has the potential to sustain itself eternally.
There is no particular existence anywhere that is discernibly good: No one is to be envied in the world, and there is no preciousness in it that is not conditioned. Hence the final words of the Noble One: “Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness.”