#22 morality, psychology & the world

#22 morality, psychology & the world


we are led to believe that our Morality
and Ethics are subjective and relative in this post-modern world That’s actually a misconception. A deliberate deception Let’s use the framework of
PsyntegratioN to observe our morality Morality and Ethics are not subjective
or relative When a child is born She or He must be taken care of by another held, protected, nourished, contained this is the Morality and Ethics of parenthood and child care. There are many variations here: like the
North American cradle-board the African sling and today’s baby-carriers. All are harmonious and appropriate in different societies and cultures. In the same manner all people, infants to adults, are held, contained, sustained and nourished, by society and culture. the fundamental rules of society and culture, the Morality and Ethics, are derived from the ‘basic rules of existence’ I’ve outlined in past conversations I named them ‘Three Special Singularities’, the appearance of matter of life and of consciousness. With the appearance of matter, 13.7 billion years ago, the first ‘rule of existence’ appears that everything is changing all
the time nothing is infinite or permanent. Social and psychological structures that advocates stagnation, fixation and eternal truths, are unnatural. They cause damage to the environment that contain us, and create much psychological symptomalogy and suffering. An example for this is the belief that a nation’s capital will last for eternity or the concept of an unchanging human nature. With the appearance of life, four
and a half billion years ago, the ‘second special singularity’, the new rule of existence is that life wants to go on living. Now social and psychological
structures that are promoting the reduction, or the termination, of
substantial life, are damaging the environments that contain us and are causing much psychological symptomalogy and suffering. An example for this is
atomic warfare, genocide and the annihilation of ecosystems and
biodiversity. With the appearance of consciousness, 80 thousand years ago, the ‘third special singularity’, the new ‘rule of existence’ that appears is that our consciousness has a drive to expand. To broaden the borders of our knowledge and expression. Now social and psychological constructs that are aimed at narrowing, or at decreasing, this human potential are causing much psychological symptomalogy and suffering. Examples for that are the burning of libraries in the near and the Far East as far back as two thousand years ago or the current resistance to scientific thought and discovery. Human Morality and Ethics have universal foundations on which an ever-changing variety of social and cultural structures are appearing and changing continuously All psychological suffering is connected to current deviation of our societies and culture from natural morality. Psychology and psychotherapy teaches us that we can change our beliefs, our values and our behaviors, as individuals and as a collective. So there’s much work to be done. We’ll end here today. We’ll continue this collective introspection next time thank you for watching Please make sure
to press LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, SHARE let’s be active together Bye Bye

Comments

(3 Comments)

  • Dr. Shawna Freshwater

    Well said and thank you for spreading the word on Consciousness –the individual and the collective.

  • Patty Sabatier

    can you comment on where and how human moral and ethical practices containing death would look like in your discussion today? where is it in the 3 singularities and how do we give respect to its value demands on us, the living. how does it evolve and remain rooted in the 3 singularities.

  • bob Macintosh

    Without denying the natural, physical constraints on morality, I'd like to draw attention to the influence of more purely social environmental constraints, changes in which over a short timescale, result as currently, in an exaggerated conflict between old and new moralities. Excuse me for quoting myself from elsewhere:
    "I think history is quite a big influence. I mentioned elsewhere that my mother had to give up her job at the bank when she married. It was normal policy before WW2, and considered moral and appropriate that married women should stay at home and look after the house, the husband, and the children. Women were not expected to be in the workplace in any great number at all. Even a working class man could earn enough to keep a family in an acceptable level of poverty.

    After the war, there was a labour shortage in the UK, and attitudes magically began to change. These days 'housewife' hardly counts as an occupation at all, it is the same as being unemployed. But the change is not complete. The good life is still gendered, by which I mean that the image of a good woman is still slanted in most people's (both sexes) minds towards caring, nurturing, serving, beautifying, as compared to the hard working, strong persistent competitive good man. Action man and decorative Barbie. It takes more than a generation for society to adapt its morality to the economic requirements that arise in that single generation, and the result is a generation brought up confused and conflicted morally; old fashioned conservative notions fighting modern radical – dare I say 'postmodern'? – ideals both of which seem self-evidently right to their adherents.

    Meanwhile, the economy seems to be changing its needs again, such that it needs neither men nor women, and the appropriate good life to that economy is a short one with no offspring. All hail the pessimists, the anti-natalists the singularity apostles, harbingers of the post human economy."

  • Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *