(NOTE:  Sorry I haven’t posted for over a week.  I came down with the flu.  That…was not fun.)

A thing that exists can only exist relative to something else; that is, nothing in Creation exists as solely a definition of itself.  Well…caveat:  except, I would suppose, the fundamental subatomic particle of Creation.  This, I would think, must be solely comprised of itself, its own space, time, location and material;  for any particle that has some kind of reference point from which to derive its meaning or at least an aspect of it, even if found in itself,  cannot be the singular particle of existence.  For example, it cannot be the sole creative particle if it has parts, because parts are relative to one another, giving those parts their very meaning.  E.g. the right side of a ball versus the left side; the top verses the bottom; THIS part as opposed to THAT part.  If this is the case, then there must also exist something besides the particle.  For in order to have a top and bottom, left and right, the object must exist in some kind of space external to itself, and this space must then obviously be a completely separate thing from the object.  And if this is true, then the object could not have come before the space,which means that the object is NOT the singular creative particle.  The particle must precede space and time, thus, it cannot occupy or consume any amount of either. What I am suggesting is that space and time must be creations of the root subatomic particle and not the other way around.

At any rate…it is the exception that proves the rule.

But, aside from the singular subatomic particle, without a reference object also “being” according to equal existential reality (it is, and the other object also is, according to the same universal principles), then the first object simply cannot exist.  There is no object that can lounge in an existential vacuum.  It must derive its meaning and thus its very being (and I mean literal being) from another relative object.  Meaning is not simply an abstract concept, I should mention.  Meaning is an inherent fact of existence.  It is impossible to exist without meaning, even if that meaning is just:  it IS.  But it cannot BE without something else to declare that it IS by, even if that something is “space”.  If it IS, then this fact must be relative to IS NOT, and it is impossible to make that distinction by a single entity alone. IS and IS NOT cannot in fact be determined without RELATIVE existence, and that means that nothing exists alone.  Existence is fundamentally dualistic; and yet, a third party is required for this dualism to be manifest.  IS and IS NOT is a dualistic construct, however, this construct requires a separate plumb line by which to measure the degree of either.  A thing can be IS or IS NOT, but it must be so relative to a separate standard, and this standard must be a tangible thing that also exists, even if that thing is merely “space”. 

So, existence must be relative…that is, an object is always given its fundamental meaning by the existence of a separate something else.  There is no such thing as existence without relativity.

Now, I posit that this is true for the physical, and also, in equal measure, for  human consciousness.  Man’s consciousness cannot be at any one time singular in its existence; every thought of man is at every moment relative to another mental construct/idea/abstract truth.  This is the root truth of morality, of ethics.  Therefore, just as we can find the true duality between the physical things of the universe by measuring (i.e. via quantification; mathematics…the “physical laws of nature”) their relative relationship to other things, we can and I would say must concentrate on pragmatically determining  and philosophically quantifying the duality of man’s self-awareness, which is to say, declare the law of right and wrong/good and evil/preference and demurring and then construct a “proof” of these moral “laws” .

My motivation for doing such a thing is not to usher in some kind of legalistic, external moral police handbook.  Not at all…I would argue that the first law of morality which can be philosophically quantified is that man comes into existence as a single entity; and thus, ownership of one’s self, and his or her mental and physical product, is the FIRST natural law.  But what I am submitting is that the metaphysical truths which guide the human mind are as pragmatic, with outcomes and consequence as predictable, observable, ubiquitous and consistent as the physical truths that explain the relative interaction of objects in creation, and which also guide the human mind in its biology.

Now, those who would suppose that the human consciousness and physical/natural law are in fact one and the same…that human self-awareness is merely the result of physical (in his case, biological) laws are determinists at heart, and they are in the unenviable place of having to defend their idea from a positional reality that cannot possibly be true given the very idea they are defending.  This positional reality from which they proceed, despite what they are arguing, is that they can actually know anything.  What I mean by this is:  if all of their thoughts are merely the inevitable outcome of the laws of nature, then there is nothing they can truly know.  Why?  Because all thoughts are likewise inevitable effects of a sea of cosmic inevitable effects, which neutralizes man’s consciousness, an makes his self-awareness an illusion.  This makes their argument self-contradictory at the start.

On the contrary, the FACT must be that when human self-awareness is birthed, is realized, even if it is the effect of the biological, then that self-awareness, in order to be real, must be ascribed its own, very literal and separate ability.  If a person can conceptualize themselves as separate from themselves and the rest of Creation, which is precisely the definition of self-awareness, then the ability to do this must be declared as operating in spite of, outside of, and/or contradictory to the laws which guide the strict biological functioning of the mind.

As far as quantifying morality goes, I would argue that the only way (and indeed, by definition, it is the only way if objectivity (TRUTH) is what we seek) to truly quantify morality is to utilize only those parameters of thinking that are based in reason: logic, empiricism, and observable cause and effect outcomes.  Contradiction, paradox, and blind faith should be discarded except in cases where they must be used to support some rational conclusion, which would otherwise not be rational.  For example:  God’s omnipotence cannot be “proven”, but it can, and further must, be accepted as a logical premise if we concede that such a One exists; and by this we can safely say that, because of God’s unquantifiable power and perfection, He cannot succumb to redundancy or irrelevancy as they are objectively defined according to our reality, which is our only reference perspective for God, and thus must be always considered, by divine design.  Thus, an axiom of morality would be that no metaphysical redundancy or contradiction can form all or part of a moral law.

Understand, I am not proclaiming that I am close to creating such a standardization of morality, but merely opining that real metaphysical truth, spiritual/theological/doctrinal TRUTH cannot come by avenues which have no root in man’s existence as verified by observable, knowable, repeatable cause and effect relationships like the ones we see in the physical sciences.  Given that the one paradigm which both the metaphysical and the physical share is the NEED for relative meaning (that is, existence of anything depends on another thing from which to declare that it IS or IS NOT), I would argue that doctrines and philosophies which are opposed to empirical verification as defined by reason are ultimately untenable, and should be rejected.  Real faith has nothing to do with inconsistent and contradictory “faith”.  Indeed, if it is rationally contradictory, it isn’t faith at all.  It is insanity.