As long as volitional action is there ethics is also current. The denial of volition, furthermore, is generally better understood ethically than metaphysically. So, take it as primary that the meta-motive in action is the intensifying of consciousness, as a consequence of the conatus essendi, or the will to power, and the manifest truth that experience is everything. Art is an assertion at the highest and most inclusive level available to the artist, and every actor is in a deep sense no more or less than an artist. (Assertion of self is perhaps the lowest level of this, but even this requires the concomitant assertion of everything opposed to the self.) Intensification of consciousness is also expansion of consciousness and hence comes to include an awareness of the subjective states of all alter-egos within the attained range of the acting or behaviour-creating subject. Put simply, your deepest value is to expand your consciousness and as you progress in this you inevitably become aware of the effects of your actions on every other subject directly or indirectly affected by your actions. The notion of such awareness, condensed perhaps into a golden rule, leads to an ethic of care and harm. But if your highest end is intensification and expansion of consciousness then surely your care for others should respect the same principle and not be conceived purely in terms of happiness, pleasure, or the minimisation of suffering. When you are aware that experiences that cross the overt purposes of the self often result in the greatest augmentations of consciousness, then your golden rule is no longer an unambiguous guide to action. In such a case you might shift your chief motive of care to Truth or Justice, taken as a concise way of summarising the greatest value in experience. In this way you move towards an ethic of virtue. Since you can't know what is the practical best, you value rules which embody the values central to the meta-game. But as soon as a gnostic element enters the equation the pull to antinomianism arises.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(348)
-
▼
November
(30)
- Being human as distinct from merely mortal i...
- The unawakened account of the awakening woul...
- You always think that something needs to hap...
- Why are your thoughts your thoughts, why is ...
- All these foolish words, do you think anyone...
- Every new item about the world needs to be f...
- The experiencer and experience and experienc...
- The Truth IS, but is neither subjective nor ...
- As long as volitional action is there ethic...
- A virtue ethic is one in which there is a mu...
- A phenomenon is real when it is effective be...
- The wages of virtue are sleep and death, tho...
- You can talk about feeling or emotion (is it...
- What if this strange silence is the true bas...
- There is far more of the past to review than...
- The truth of things, of you, surely exists, ...
- Certain words you hear or read seem to summo...
- Mind or self theorises itself, necessarily ...
- At the heart of your strivings there is some...
- A satisfying explanation of the relationship...
- It is in the same place as that in which emo...
- To ask, to answer, to mean that something...
- One of the two had stayed a seeker all his l...
- Doubt is intrinsic to your constitution as a...
- In the early hours there were dreams, episo...
- Without thinking it through, but just going ...
- For identification you need an object in a n...
- It only takes the slightest shift in percept...
- It is a deliberate kind of focus that indivi...
- Experience can be inventoried. There is...
-
▼
November
(30)
Wednesday, 22 November 2017
As long as volitional action is there ethics is also current. The denial of volition, furthermore, is generally better understood ethically than metaphysically. So, take it as primary that the meta-motive in action is the intensifying of consciousness, as a consequence of the conatus essendi, or the will to power, and the manifest truth that experience is everything. Art is an assertion at the highest and most inclusive level available to the artist, and every actor is in a deep sense no more or less than an artist. (Assertion of self is perhaps the lowest level of this, but even this requires the concomitant assertion of everything opposed to the self.) Intensification of consciousness is also expansion of consciousness and hence comes to include an awareness of the subjective states of all alter-egos within the attained range of the acting or behaviour-creating subject. Put simply, your deepest value is to expand your consciousness and as you progress in this you inevitably become aware of the effects of your actions on every other subject directly or indirectly affected by your actions. The notion of such awareness, condensed perhaps into a golden rule, leads to an ethic of care and harm. But if your highest end is intensification and expansion of consciousness then surely your care for others should respect the same principle and not be conceived purely in terms of happiness, pleasure, or the minimisation of suffering. When you are aware that experiences that cross the overt purposes of the self often result in the greatest augmentations of consciousness, then your golden rule is no longer an unambiguous guide to action. In such a case you might shift your chief motive of care to Truth or Justice, taken as a concise way of summarising the greatest value in experience. In this way you move towards an ethic of virtue. Since you can't know what is the practical best, you value rules which embody the values central to the meta-game. But as soon as a gnostic element enters the equation the pull to antinomianism arises.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.