Morality and perversion

Get around and talk to people and you begin to sense that morality is an abstraction. Different strokes, for different folks is the evidence, and there are many different styles of self regulation. As much as people want to believe that there is a universal morality that if we all just adhered to everything would be fine, there is only moral dilemma.

So why do we suffer the effects of perversion. It is not a moral dilemma, we have that, and perversion as well. It is because we hadn't apprehended the nature of perversion. A perversion is when a thing is used for a purpose for which it was not intended.

To drive a nail with a screwdriver, is a perversion, the effects of which, are obviously ill. So it is incumbent in avoiding perversion, of which moral judgments are one, we learn to ask the question, what is it for?

 

these are completely separate and unrelated issues. perversion is the abstraction.
morality is about not screwing everything up for each other.
completely separate and unrelated.
whatever the misinterpretation of any belief may claim to the contrary.

 

Absolutely love this quote. I think I will nail it into a commandments tablet.

 

is there no such thing as right or wrong ?

 

Exactly my point.

Perversion is an abstraction when it is associated with a violation of "moral code", which is an abstraction. Perversion as I have described it as a misappropriation of function, is not an abstraction. For example, the purpose of sexuality is the preservation of biological code, procreation. That is it's evolutionary cause to be. We interpret sexual impulses in many different ways and these different ways, differing from evolutionary cause, amount to perversion as I describe it.
As such we get interpretations of impulses that consider romanticism to be loving when in fact it is based on relative insufficiency and guilt.

What you describe is what you consider moral behavior. My point about what you say is that helpful, not screwing things up for each other, must necessarily be a matter of timing, not the guidance of moral code. It may be expedient in some minds at some point to consider it just to punish for the sake of innocence, to kill another to protect an innocent. This is an unimaginably unreliable metric as such judgement does not give information about the environment but only about the quality of judgement, that is we do not find value out there, but rather we evaluate. The thing that this kind of evaluation misses is consistent observable quality. It's parameters are subject to subjective states of excitement. There are "moral issues" that may concern you in one instance , that would not concern you in another but rather rode a sentiment of tolerance to the point of it not being an "issue" at all.

However, even beyond that, is the factual incapacity of anyone to screw things up for any one else or for any one to screw anything up at all. All that exists is real and cannot in fact be threatened. Further, nothing unreal exists. That is, what is, is, and the only variation as to what is, is in description only.

Don't kid yourself. If you think you have a talent for doing good in every instance you will find yourself inevitably surprised by the realization that good intentions have unintended consequences.

 

In terms of functionality yes, but not in terms of good and evil.

Mark my words. You will have reliable results in screwing screws with a screw driver as opposed to insufficient results if you try to screw screws with a jack hammer. It is meaningful and consistently reliable as far as beneficial effects to consider right and wrong in this fashion rather than one that has been influenced beyond identification by culturally induced sentimental affectations.

In addition ask the question is it true or false? This question has definite answers because it is relevant to observable facts that we can mutually determine. What is false by definition is not true, and therefore does not exist. If you call upon a premise that can be shown to be inconsistent, that is cannot be consistently applied in every instance, then it is not true.

The reason being, reality
is non- local, nor is it remote. That is, there are no exceptional, or special, real places. Or no place is more real than any other place.

 

I agree. It is what it is. And we are all in here.

 

by "screwing things up" what i mean specifically is knowingly and willingly contributing to the causes of incentives that motivate decisions that create conditions mutually observable in the real world to be unpleasant and or anti-gratifying.

not kidding myself, what you say is true enough.

diversity being the nature of reality, we can never know ALL of what may lead to what,
but to deliberately blind ourselves to what we can observe, as an excuse to favor instant gratification over responsible consideration of the kind of world our actions and priorities motivate and lead to,
is not merely not in the general interest, but contrary to our own individually in the here and now as well.

 

If necessity is the mother of invention, would perversion be her daughter?

 

Certainly there is a theoretical potential for single minded effort as in a universal morality, however the extant facts demonstrate that such a thing is not needed for functioning.

Again, real is sufficient to support diversity so a common conception of reality is not required. I agree that anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so. My point is there is in fact no universal morality and upholding it's place in truth, contributes only to moral dilemma.

To bring an end to the contest of moral dilemma which spills out so unkindly between peoples, we could perhaps correctly address the nature of perversion which the idea of morality unsuccessfully seeks to address.

 

I don't see how they are related.

 

I agree, there are no moral dilemmas where reality is apprehended. I define perversion as not a moral dilemma, but as a misappropriation of function. In this statement on morality and perversion I seek to dissociate from the idea that perversion is a degree of immorality, but rather as you say, there are only dilemmas due to misunderstanding.

My sentiment succinctly is that there are no unprincipled men, only men who have learned so well, unsound principles.

 

i think people have been largely led astray as to what morality REALLY is, more by revealed religions then by almost anything else. the real evil is tyranny and the real tyranny is the dominance of aggressiveness, regardless of belief, ideology, or anything else.

 

You are not off base in your reasoning. I am making slightly different distinctions.

To continue with the screwdriver example, while the screwdriver is serviceable for poking holes in objects as well as people, it does so with decreased efficiency. This decrease in efficiency can be starkly appreciated in relation to the inventions conceived to fulfill the functions you describe, an awl or hole punch, and a sword or bullet. This decrease in efficiency manifests as tension, anxiety, friction, disharmony. However these things are not in opposition , which is why things remain relatively serviceable, it is simply that more energy is expended for the same result.

There is an attraction to guilt as an association to immorality and it seems rational and reasonable considering the world view of those who uphold the concept. However what is real cannot be unworthy. We believe in guilt because we have not recognized that nothing real can be threatened and only that which is real exists.

Imagination is real but things imagined are not.
Knowledge is being shared. If we cannot share our individual or private perspectives then they are unlikely to be supported. If we find ourselves in contention it is never with reality but only with each other. Not to say that we are not real but that our individual perspectives are but a small slice of a much larger picture which we all share.

We do not happen upon humanity towards each other in a general and enduring way because of the effects of accusation. We have built both fortress and prison and yet none have kept us safe and it appears to me our lack of success is as you say, the result of misidentifying the threat.
Anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so. A mind with out anxiety is wholly kind.

We are energy being energetic. Energy does not have a moral code but is refracted and transduced.

 

The real tyranny is accusation. Can you describe the "real morality" without using immorality as it's foundation?

 

the avoidance of causing suffering and harm. ok i didn't use the word immorality. but the point is still valid. screwing everything up for everyone else screws it up for one's self as well. this is not because of some book or some wise saying. but because we are still in the same place where we are, whatever we do to it. to confuse thoughtlessness with freedom is more then ignorance. ignorance can be innocent. so intention is an important element.

accusation? there is no accusation. a word is a word. what is done is done. what is observed is observed. one may call themselves a bowl of cereal, but they still look silly sitting on the kitchen table with milk on their head.

 

If you are living, suffering is part and parcel. Harm has no face, you cannot point to it. Yes we are all connected. We are indelibly connected and cannot be separated by "events". Time as a mental construct is a sort of separation from current emergence.

How do you measure an event? Where does it begin and where does it end? To truly know the consequences of an act in a space time continuum, time must stop, yet it does not. The only thing that can be "screwed up" is our illusions about the world and our relationship to it. Nothing real can be threatened.

So you can't define the parameters of morality because morality is just a word, but you know it when you see it?

Intent is not visible!

The accusation is that people can screw things up. As far as I can tell reality cannot be in contention with itself as there is nothing unreal. All anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so.

Unless of course, you believe in the devil.