Joseph Maynor

But who has completely broken free? You still present in a finite form, no? That thought of "completely breaking free" might be conceptual knowledge as you describe. Maybe enlightenment is different from that idea.

Even if moral realism is true, everyone falls short of doing the right thing much of the time. You can see people's actions and generally get a sense as to how much they value morality though. People do differ in how much respect they give to morality. Some like to give the illusion of morality (even excessive morality) and then act very differently behind the scenes.

Some people will take the there is no morality thing as an excuse to not temper their morality. If there is no good or bad, then anything goes and therefore I have a pass to basically act without questioning the conduct or feeling blame or shame. When the ego gets a hold of there is no morality, it can become problematic with certain individuals. It can set up a stance that there is only morality if I feel like it situationally.

I think I found a way to take the argument out of morality in the following way. Not saying I agree with this, but I thought about it and am trying to steelman it. Truth is Reality itself Reality = God / Absolute Misalignment = self-deception Self-deception = suffering / corruption So alignment with Truth isn’t “moral”, it’s structural. It's more like metaphysical hygiene.

This is making it way too complicated. All you have to do is observe that someone is making ought statements assumed to be universally epistemologically valid.

Have you invented morality in your communications?

Can you summarize your position and I will respond.

I'm kinda over hiding morality. This is ridiculous.

Yes. But you're assuming that is wrong, no?

I still feel like morality is being brought in thru the back door with the fox is guarding the hen-house idea. Why not openly admit moral realism?

I disagree. I think Love includes love. Just like Truth contains truth.

I don't feel that way, but then again I don't know you well.

Actually for me nature has been pretty good. I've had my issues of course.

It's interesting how you say from our perspective.

Examining every possibility could fill volumes. This is why ultimately you have to be the source when it comes to judgment. This is an interesting video I'm re-watching now:

It's always been popular with kids to resist moral realism. Why is that? This is why everyone has to try to bring morality in thu the back door in spirituality. Because the assumption is spirituality is superior to someone (usually the human is scapegoated here).

Love includes kindness. Just like Truth includes truth.

This is actually really interesting because it shows how metaphysics and ethics blur. We assume there's a brite-line distinction between metaphysics and ethics. This gets into intellect mastery. Someone wants to draw a conclusion with concepts that shade into each other.

The presence of ought statements as epistemically valid. That's moral realism.

Got it. I'll rewatch that video today. However, you seem to consider both as valuable to share as oughts, i.e., you seem feel like both ought to be integrated or embodied, and are both true/True on some level. I'll re-watch both of these videos today.

Aren't health, finances, relationships relative issues? What is the relationship of relative truths to Absolute Truth?

What made you conclude that this is The Work?