Applying Existential Morality To The Scientific Limit

Applying Existential Morality To The Scientific Limit

By The Fool

Because the definition of self is the totality of environment, which is analogues to both the potential infinitude of causal time; the timeless state of the first cause; the cultural environment; the personal environment; or any state of reality; it is then very possible for the total environment of self to influence the personal environment of self, for it literally exists before time as the first cause.

What is shown through existential moral theory is that the personal environment acts upon reality through a function of free-will; choice; or literally the total environment aware of it’s own being. This is provable materially and not just logically, because there are obvious subsets of environment generated from the natural environment, necessitated by choice.

Though causally speaking all of our choices are dictated by environmental factors that precede the body’s generation, this only negates free-will if the self is identified as the personal environment, for one cannot logically reconcile the personal environment acting upon itself with the first cause determining all things. However choice is not reducible to a material thing from which its property can be determined, and can only be observed by its effect in time, which is disassociation from the whole through new subsets of environment.

Choice is not reducible to a single moment in time, for that would mean that the choice was made in time, which it was not; being made by the total environment of the self before the generation of things I.E space/time. As is previously stated, we exist in time as a continuum of choice necessitating the generation of new subsets from the whole. The substance or property of this continuum is analogous to the total environment that was determined by a first cause, the substance also being the first cause. Because the substance of self is ultimately only recognizable as that which determined it; this determiner being the first cause; this first cause being timeless, yet our personal environment only able to understand things in time; the substance of the self is therefore nothing; such substance could only be determined by its effect in time.

As is shown not only though the logic of observable subsets of self, but by being able to actually explain morality in an objective manor, at the same time reconciling determinism with free will by virtue of the true definition of self; which is that of the totality of reality; having explained causality as it pertains to self, and shown how it paradoxically applies to our own existence through determinism which does not oppose a free-will, I claim my right as someone who has experienced that which is analogues to nothing, and so can explain it by virtue of itself in context to such.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus is eternal. This means that a state of existence is eternal, therefore the concept of nothing, of no-thing, is impossible. Yet nonetheless we have the concept.

Because nothing is impossible, nothing is not non-existence but merely the limit of the self-aware environment. Just in the same way our self-awareness created the concepts of “good” and “evil” in order to communicate the understanding of pleasure/displeasure to our primitive selves, it created the concept of nothing to communicate not no-thing, but the limits of what the personal environment could comprehend.

For example; because the personal environment is determined by the brain, which is determined by space/time, anything which is beyond time and space would be analogous to our mind as nothing. Because the first cause is of a singular thing, a unified substance before the determination of time, it is analogues with nothing to the personal environment, but if energy is eternal, this perception of nothing is then an illusion created by the limits of the self-aware environment.

Through the personal environment acting upon itself through it’s own self-awareness, one may increase the self-aware environment to include things other than just the personal environment itself.

An example would be the concept of the first cause, which is the source of all deterministic logic. The concept is not the first cause itself, for the concept, as I have shown through it being temporal in the mind by relation to it’s own necessity, is a logical construction used by the personal self to understand things other than itself, thus in order for something like the first cause which is timeless to be known by the mind, it must take part in time, therefore the first cause is not the first cause, but a concept of itself.

This means that the true first cause is analogues with nothing, and therefore the self whose definition extends to all states of existence, is also analogues with nothing in relation to the self-aware environment in context to the personal environment.

So, if nothing is in fact not no-thing, but merely the limits of the mind of which the true self extends from, yet cannot see by virtue of the self-aware environment identifying itself as the personal environment of the body, then theoretically if the mind were to experience a state void from all phenomena, a true state of nothing, the self-aware environment would cease to exist as just the personal environment, becoming aware of that which was previously analogues to itself as nothing.

Thus the personal environment could transcend itself and one could experience states of reality that are beyond the conception of the brain produced by the body; instead of thinking about the idea of the first cause, one could experience it first hand; instead of thinking about the concepts of universes beyond time/space, one could experience them.

This is the motivation behind my words; not to convert those to my way of thinking, but to try and help them understand my way of thinking, so that they may by ether practical practice or penetrating mind experience what I have, and transcend themselves.