Debate I've been having in another forum. Wondering your thoughts.

He's presuming that we are all one with the universe, which seems to make sense. How does that effect your behavior.

Opponents post:

Application of the highest law, the first law of the universe: ONE thing, Brahman, Being, Transcendent, The Absolute, or many other names it goes by. It should always be put first as the means/basis to accomplish or to know anything.

Mine:

Are you saying that because we are all essentially one, all of our behaviors should be to better the whole?

Lets say that you are the universe. What would your belief system be that drives your behavior? I believe after questioning why you would want anything, it always leads back to your own quality of life. Whatever brings you pleasure.

Two examples:

The pursuit of truth (understanding). Why? It's interesting (short term quality of life behavior). It will lead to personal growth/ wisdom (long term quality of life behavior).

Helping others. Why? I like how it make's me feel (short term quality of life behavior). It will better the all (long term quality of life behavior).

This should conclude that all your behaviors lead to you acting in a selfish manner.

Given your selfish behaviors, how do you come to terms with potentially being a mortal being. Lets say that you enjoy movies, music, books more than helping the whole. A more stimulating present moment indulging in new thoughts, compared to helping at a soup kitchen or creating art for people. How could your meaning to life be anything more that the sum of all your present moments in regards to quality of life.

If you new for sure you were immortal, all of your behaviors could be aligned with helping the whole in order to maximize the totality of your quality of life.

So I'm asking why your care about helping the whole? What makes you think this will improve your own quality of life?

The "astronaut consciousness shift" is something to consider.

One can suppose that points of view that inspire one to see themselves as part of a greater whole lends towards a less egocentric view with the realization of being alike with other selves in such a position.

There's a balance between egoism and altruism that generates the optimal path of morality. As we evolve, we develop a higher understanding of the appropriate strategy we should employ in order to benefit this Being and ourselves simultaneously to max effect.

Thanks for the astronaut consciousness shift thought.

Would it be amoral to do something that wasn't best for yourself?
Like giving money to a charity that doesn't effect your life. Other than the feeling you get from donating, which could be an understandable reason for doing so.

Whether it is amoral is a calculation based on your current needs, resources, and view of the parties you are sharing with.

Your life/body is like a business/store/government. If you have extra resources to spare not only is it NOT amoral to distribute them to others, but it can be highly moral and highly in your interest. Science and economics is teaching us that helping others, also helps yourself. You are creating connections, alliances, and giving to those who would potentially commit crimes and potentially hurt you and your way of life if you didn't provide those extra resources.

Everything is a case by case basis, just as everything you do changes based on the circumstances. It may be in your best interest to read this post and respond to it in immediately. However, you may suddenly have to be pee and the circumstances now changed, you go to the bathroom instead. Every moment of your life you make moral decisions that are a constant balancing act of the forces of nature. Every day we are all searching for what we should do and the will to do it.

So is morality a purely selfish act then? From my understanding of your post, you would only provide resources to others if it helps yourself.

It seems common that morality is believed to be adjusting your behavior to help the whole. Whenever I continue to question the intentions of such behaviors, it always leads back to what is best for yourself.

Kinda like how people become vegan because they like how they are perceived by others for doing so. Or to pass some self judgment of themselves based upon their belief system. I'm not sure I believe it's because they are really concerned about the cow that had to be killed for their meal.

That leads me to empathy. Empathy is interesting because I believe the emotion(s) stimulated during such an experience, such as those starving African commercials, try to convince me of doing things that aren't in the best interest of myself.

Obviously being able to understand how another feels is useful. But I'm wondering how it fits into a natural selection model. Why we feel compelled to do things that aren't in our best interest. Maybe empathy is more of a group survival impulse? A tribal response to a situation. Do you think the dominance of that trait will decline as we continue to evolve?

Morality is inherently survivalist. if you want to call it selfish you may but I don't care for the word choice as it comes off as inherently negative which it isn't.

The reason being goes to your second query about vegans and empathy. We care for others because the higher our number is the better our survival chances are. We feel for others so that they will feel for us and we can support each other emotionally as well as financially, etc.

As we evolve our standards become higher and our level of etiquette continues to rise to coincide what we learn from science. What it means to be civilized changes and it allows us to know who are our closest allies and who we can trust.

The metaphor I like to use most is to picture yourself as a tree. You were planted like a seed at a certain location. Over time you grow and your roots and branches spread out. morality is to survive and your roots and branches spread out as a means of survival. They may tangle with other treea and life forms or feed off them. Is a tree immoral or amoral for wanting to grow to survive?

Beyond survival is thriving. A forest thrives.

Well said. I see no reason not to reduce the survival rate of other trees and life forms to increase your own.

Ecology.

This op seems like a convo of people just wanting to talk for the fun of it instead of actually trying to get to the truth about things. Fwiw op, you are hopeless if you continue as you are doing. For instance:

This does not make sense. What does he mean when he says that? Does he mean the universe is made of atoms and humans are also made of atoms? If so, he is correct. Does he mean something more than that? If so, he is most likely incorrect. Thing is, you have no idea what he means because you just accept it. What he means by this statement could be any of 1,000 things. Most likely it is some spiritual bull**** that makes him feel happy when he believes it while he has no evidence to support it, and you seem more than willing to accept it on the basis that "it seems to make sense."

This is just one sentence in your op, but the rest of them are equally ambiguous and therefore meaningless and useless in a discussion between two people, assuming they are interested in finding some truth as opposed to hearing each other talk.

I would advise you to start from the beginning again, and define any and everything very clearly so that there is no wiggle room for your opponent. Anything that he says that can be interpreted in more than one way needs to be hammered out so that exactly what he is saying is 100% clear and cannot possibly be misunderstood.

I would also advise not to do this however, because if you do, you will realize that what he is saying is nonsense and only makes sense to someone if it is ambiguous enough that the listeners mind interprets it in the best way possible to fit his/her individual beliefs. Once the ambiguity is gone, as is often the case, the only thing left is nothing.

Oneness with the universe is a specific perspective. It means not separate from the universe.

We are all within nature which feeds and takes us into her bounty and yet there is a comprehension that we are an individual within this great abide/

Sure there's a contradiction but living within this contradiction is the human condition as man, in one respect,expresses mortality, while at the same time presents as immortal being .

Being 'One with Brahman" , as pantheistic abstraction, is easy enough to express but the actual experience, as sought for by the Ancient Indian is the stuff Yogi's are made of.

The Ancient Indian, up into including the Buddha which is the culmination of the Eastern perspective, denied the "Ego" or "I" of Man and so any entry into Brahman was with complete loss of self, no contradiction noted. The new age with it's beginnings at our current era(2100 years ago) has the "Ego" released and Man can have a "sense of self" or "personality" while within the Brahman of the Ancient Indian.

This is one of the contradictions between the ancient and modern eras, the "Ego' of Man has hit the earth running.

Likewise tha ancient, for want of a better perspective, was not so much immersed within "morality" and this even continued up into the ancient Greeks. Read of the so called heathen exegesis/gods and the moral tenor or tone was not paramount . the Greek gods were more like us with passions, hates and no small amount of clever. You won't find a moral pontificate in, for example, the Iliad or the Odyssey.

The new age came through the ancient Hebrew and of course we have the Decalogue to which morality or moral tone is primary. Man "sins" only as an individual and for this he mandates a "personality' or "sense of "I".

Why would I be hopeless for continuing what I am doing? Why are you so angry btw?

When he says we are all one I take it as that we are all connected in some way. Some underlying fabric of the universe. Space is made up of something I believe, so how could we not be. Maybe I don't understand nothing? I don't know much about physics, I was just interested in morality type arguments.

Take a look at this if you have time and let me know what you think.

http://www.ctmu.org/

A guy with a 200 IQ came up with a theory of the universe and put god in an interesting way. It's hard to understand though.

As a matter of perception is not a contradiction to be an individual and be one with the universe. An individual and one with the universe is a valid perception.

Literally being aware of everything is being aware of already being with everything as one, unless one can literally remove themselves from everything. As an accurate perception, one can't stop being one with everything, unless one stops being one or everything stops.

Just as a finger on your hand has no existence when cut off from the body the human being likewise is also within the universe; just because we walk on the earth it doesn't mean that we are not part of it (what ever "it" is ) .

The above brings to focus our so called "detachment" from the object of our study as in the science of the day. When we see our study acting as "detached beings" we focus on "self" or "personality" but if we look "within" we then have to overcome the Scylla and Charybdis of "allness" in order to be a "one" while being a part of the cosmic allness.

The modern route to this cosmic perception is "thinking", which is "within". As explorers of the supersensible we find that the thoughts and the activity of thinking is not ours in ownership for it is apparent that each and every man holds his "thoughts" in great strength, believing that they are his in some form or another.

In so far ss through "thinking" we glean "truth" it becomes evident that "truth" is not ours but the that to which we are given through grace.

"Through thinking I experience myself united with the stream of cosmic existence". We are "wave riders" upon the activities of higher beings; in this we "think".

Clear s mud; lol.

This is exactly what I was talking about. He says something vague and you interpret it to mean what makes most sense to you. You have no idea what he was saying when he said that because it is a vague thing to say, but you assume that he meant what makes most sense to you. You went on to write a good paragraph about what you thought he meant by it.

In this way, you are allowing people in arguments / discussions to have their way with you. You give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are saying exactly what makes perfect sense to you. Their argument is tailor-made just for you, and at the same time, tailor-made for all those who would make the same mistake you made, even if their idea about what the sentence means is completely different. If you were to push them (the ones making a vague statement) further on the point, you would find they are often saying something very different.

It's just a gestalt perspective. Which is complementary with affinity. Referring back to likeness as a tendency to follow for social behavior. Let's treat people alike.

The experience of oneness with the universe is not as simply expressed as the sharable perspective.

Those who are not astronauts probably need practice.